TheSpiritualPilgrim Posted September 17, 2013 Share Posted September 17, 2013 Hello all. I am new to studying evolution, genetics and all that. I am in a little online conversation with a young earth fundy who disputed macro-evolution by saying this: 4) Your scientist friends have dug a huge grave for themselves because Darwin was completely ignorant of Genetics whereas on the other hand the Christian Gregor Mandel who practiced honest science also became the father of modern Genetics and this my friend is the downfall of Darwin’s little theory. I read a few articles and found a whole heap of info that seems kinda hard to sort through. I'm wondering if any of you could help me out with some good info to reply. Maybe some good articles to read or reference to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted September 17, 2013 Share Posted September 17, 2013 The ignorance burns. Mendel knew nothing of genetics. His work was mostly ignored until the 20th century. What Mendel discovered was a pattern of inheritance in pea plants. It did turn out to be useful in the modern world but that had nothing to do with his religion. Everyone alive before genetics were discovered was ignorant of genetics, including Charles Darwin. That doesn't make the Theory of Evolution false. Rather studying genetics confirms evolution because every living thing carries the DNA of thousands of ancestors. This older code proves that organisms evolve over time. Knowledge of DNA is the thing that makes modern scientists certain that evolution is fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravenstar Posted September 17, 2013 Share Posted September 17, 2013 There is no such thing as 'macro-evolution'... it's all just evolution, little changes (micro, I guess) over a lot of time.. and I mean a LOT of time, and with environmental pressure, creates speciation (the evolution of new species which can not breed with prior 'parent' species). Please look up ring species.. that explains it well. No pressure, very little change..(sharks - for example) lots of pressure/isolation/predation/climate change, etc..., either extinction, or evolution (higher primates - man). It's quite simple really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrNo Posted September 17, 2013 Share Posted September 17, 2013 I would just keep it simple and say that genetics actually supports the theory of evolution and link the wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent#Genetics Then let him sift through it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted September 17, 2013 Share Posted September 17, 2013 Hello all. I am new to studying evolution, genetics and all that. I am in a little online conversation with a young earth fundy who disputed macro-evolution by saying this: 4) Your scientist friends have dug a huge grave for themselves because Darwin was completely ignorant of Genetics whereas on the other hand the Christian Gregor Mandel who practiced honest science also became the father of modern Genetics and this my friend is the downfall of Darwin’s little theory. I read a few articles and found a whole heap of info that seems kinda hard to sort through. I'm wondering if any of you could help me out with some good info to reply. Maybe some good articles to read or reference to? Mandel is a Christian, therefore honest? What IS honest science anyway? Please describe. ha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSpiritualPilgrim Posted September 17, 2013 Author Share Posted September 17, 2013 I would just keep it simple and say that genetics actually supports the theory of evolution and link the wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent#Genetics Then let him sift through it. I like that approach. I don't really feel like getting into a long-winded debate with someone who is not willing to accept logical answers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skepticalme Posted September 17, 2013 Share Posted September 17, 2013 Hello all. I am new to studying evolution, genetics and all that. I am in a little online conversation with a young earth fundy who disputed macro-evolution by saying this: 4) Your scientist friends have dug a huge grave for themselves because Darwin was completely ignorant of Genetics whereas on the other hand the Christian Gregor Mandel who practiced honest science also became the father of modern Genetics and this my friend is the downfall of Darwin’s little theory. I read a few articles and found a whole heap of info that seems kinda hard to sort through. I'm wondering if any of you could help me out with some good info to reply. Maybe some good articles to read or reference to? Your YEC friend is clearly ignorant of both fields. Ask them specifically what in genetics contradicts evolution. Post their reply here and we'll evicerate it. Hell, see if they have the gonads come here and we'll do it directly. If you can't get them do either, which is most likely, point out there ignorance. Ask them to explain common endogenous reto-viruses between humans and other species and there correlation with the branching of genetic diversification within phylogeny. Ask them to explain the presence telemeres in the middle of humans #2 chromosome and why that chromosome is the same size as the combination of other apes #2 and #3 chromosomes. Ask them to explain genetic functional redundance in it's relation to phylogeny. If they are ignorant, and they are, they will not know what the fuck you are talking about. All of these are evidence that genetics supports evolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSpiritualPilgrim Posted September 17, 2013 Author Share Posted September 17, 2013 There is no such thing as 'macro-evolution'... it's all just evolution, little changes (micro, I guess) over a lot of time.. and I mean a LOT of time, You know I never really put that together even though its so obvious.. I had just heard the term macroevolution and picked it up. Thanks for pointing that out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSpiritualPilgrim Posted September 18, 2013 Author Share Posted September 18, 2013 Lots of good points here and new things for me to study up on! I did ask him to specifically explain what in genetics contradicts evolution. I'll post his answer here if he replies. Below is my latest reply to him. It's a little jumbled because we are debating more than just genetics. Thanks for the help! -Yes, it is amazing what modern medicine and encouragement from loved ones can do to turn around a person’s health. But I asked specifically how many people you have raised from the dead by prayer, not how many people who were ill and then while getting medical attention and prayer recovered. -“There were no intermediate steps”. So are you denying the existence of human subspecies? Shall we go to a museum so you can see the bones? Or maybe satan put the bones in the ground to deceive people? Here’s a good exhibit you could check out: http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/past-exhibitions/human-origins/the-history-of-human-evolution/neanderthals -From all my research I have found that DNA and genetics are what actually prove evolution because every living creature carries the dna of 1000’s of ancestors. You may want to read up on genetics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent#Genetics Also look into ring species: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species And then please let me know specifically what it is in genetics that you think contradicts evolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSpiritualPilgrim Posted September 18, 2013 Author Share Posted September 18, 2013 If any of you are on wordpress and want to jump in the conversation here's the link: http://thespiritualpilgrimblog.wordpress.com/2013/09/14/the-war-inside-chistianity-vs-intellect/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thought2Much Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 You could also bring up the idea of the genetic bottleneck, and, if creationism is true, why all animals on earth don't show genetic bottlenecks that can be traced back to the flood of Noah less than six thousand years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 If any of you are on wordpress and want to jump in the conversation here's the link: http://thespiritualpilgrimblog.wordpress.com/2013/09/14/the-war-inside-chistianity-vs-intellect/ Wow that guy thinks the Bible is evidence. He might be a lost cause. Did he ever consider that in China, Norway, Sweden or any other atheist culture there are elderly people who might be on the brink of death one day and recover the next without any prayer at all? It's a rather ordinary occurrence. This is why science has control groups. You don't pray for one guy and notice that he gets better about as much as the one you were praying over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkillusion Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 If I may offer some assistance on your conversation with this person...in one comment to him you said that macro evolution is just a theory. Christians like to grab onto this by saying we have no proof for evolution and it's "only" a theory. What those without a background in science assume is that theory means something we are unsure of, perhaps an educated guess. I would implore you not to downgrade evolution as "just a theory" in your debate with this person. The term theory in science is used to describe something that is a general concept. Something that includes a broad range of sub topics. It is every bit considered a fact as a law. The term law is used for very specific concepts. Something that can be explained in one sentence or a formula, like the laws of physics. If scientists wanted to convey that evolution was something we are unsure of, a guess, they would have called it the hypothesis of evolution. It was this hypothesis that Darwin came up with, and his experiments proved it, and further experiments supported the scientific theory. No, macro evolution is not something scientists are unsure of in the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrNo Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 If you're going to debate creationists you've got to set up the ground rules for what constitutes evidence. Testimonies of the dead rising, whether in the Bible or youngearth's mother-in-law, do not count as evidence. If he's going to allow a 2,000 year old document of questionable reliability to constitute evidence, then why not allow for any other holy book to count as evidence? What makes the Bible so special? And how is anyone supposed to be able to tell what happened with his mother-in-law? This could be a lie, a medical mystery with a natural explanation, a misunderstanding, etc. REAL evidence is that which has been subjected to peer review, tested and re-tested. Science. It works. Bitches. Also, as to the guy's point about other Christians struggling with these questions, so what? Many former Christians who became atheists also struggled with these questions. This appears to be a common logical fallacy known as an appeal to authority ("If C.S. Lewis asked this question and still believed, then it must be true!"). In the realm of evidence, however, authority is practically meaningless. Arguments should stand on their own merits. And frankly, the typical Christian responses just don't cut it. They demand intellectual dishonesty or belief in an illogical, immoral god, despite any evidence of his existence. I would love to ask if any of them have ever read any published non-Christian's take on some of these questions. Most of the Christians I know have only read what other Christians have to say. Nowadays if a Christian asks me to read a book in an effort to win me back to the faith I tell them I will, if they'll read a book that I recommend by a non-Christian. Few take me up on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrNo Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 If I may offer some assistance on your conversation with this person...in one comment to him you said that macro evolution is just a theory. Christians like to grab onto this by saying we have no proof for evolution and it's "only" a theory. What those without a background in science assume is that theory means something we are unsure of, perhaps an educated guess. I would implore you not to downgrade evolution as "just a theory" in your debate with this person. The term theory in science is used to describe something that is a general concept. Something that includes a broad range of sub topics. It is every bit considered a fact as a law. The term law is used for very specific concepts. Something that can be explained in one sentence or a formula, like the laws of physics. If scientists wanted to convey that evolution was something we are unsure of, a guess, they would have called it the hypothesis of evolution. It was this hypothesis that Darwin came up with, and his experiments proved it, and further experiments supported the scientific theory. No, macro evolution is not something scientists are unsure of in the least. Yes. This. Theory in the scientific sense means something completely different to what most of us think of when we use the term. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedah Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 The stupid burns. DNA verified Darwins theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 If I may offer some assistance on your conversation with this person...in one comment to him you said that macro evolution is just a theory. Christians like to grab onto this by saying we have no proof for evolution and it's "only" a theory. What those without a background in science assume is that theory means something we are unsure of, perhaps an educated guess. I would implore you not to downgrade evolution as "just a theory" in your debate with this person. The term theory in science is used to describe something that is a general concept. Something that includes a broad range of sub topics. It is every bit considered a fact as a law. The term law is used for very specific concepts. Something that can be explained in one sentence or a formula, like the laws of physics. If scientists wanted to convey that evolution was something we are unsure of, a guess, they would have called it the hypothesis of evolution. It was this hypothesis that Darwin came up with, and his experiments proved it, and further experiments supported the scientific theory. No, macro evolution is not something scientists are unsure of in the least. Yes. This. Theory in the scientific sense means something completely different to what most of us think of when we use the term. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory Gravity is only a theory. Yet Christians don't defy gravity and float away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkillusion Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 If I may offer some assistance on your conversation with this person...in one comment to him you said that macro evolution is just a theory. Christians like to grab onto this by saying we have no proof for evolution and it's "only" a theory. What those without a background in science assume is that theory means something we are unsure of, perhaps an educated guess. I would implore you not to downgrade evolution as "just a theory" in your debate with this person. The term theory in science is used to describe something that is a general concept. Something that includes a broad range of sub topics. It is every bit considered a fact as a law. The term law is used for very specific concepts. Something that can be explained in one sentence or a formula, like the laws of physics. If scientists wanted to convey that evolution was something we are unsure of, a guess, they would have called it the hypothesis of evolution. It was this hypothesis that Darwin came up with, and his experiments proved it, and further experiments supported the scientific theory. No, macro evolution is not something scientists are unsure of in the least. Yes. This. Theory in the scientific sense means something completely different to what most of us think of when we use the term. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory Thanks for the link! I particularly like the last paragraph in the first section. Sums up what I was saying nicely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gall Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 If any of you are on wordpress and want to jump in the conversation here's the link: http://thespiritualpilgrimblog.wordpress.com/2013/09/14/the-war-inside-chistianity-vs-intellect/ Wow that guy thinks the Bible is evidence. He might be a lost cause. Did he ever consider that in China, Norway, Sweden or any other atheist culture there are elderly people who might be on the brink of death one day and recover the next without any prayer at all? It's a rather ordinary occurrence. This is why science has control groups. You don't pray for one guy and notice that he gets better about as much as the one you were praying over. What I have always questioned when the bible is cited as evidence of anything is this... How can you use a book that has basically been rewritten by every culture that got ahold of it over the hundreds of years it has been hanging around and say that it is proof of anything but that revisionist history exists? Control group is right. If you only look to a bible for answers of scientific fact you will never find any. It has no control it can mean anything really to anyone reading it. I can make it work to my advantage no matter what anyone else argues through my view point. That doesn not make it valid. Valid is hypothesis ---> experimentation ---->conclusions -----> possibly more experimentation ------>the chance that enough facts gathered from this process will lead to a theory that can be moved forward on and studied and tested by peers. Maybe you fail but even failure is an answer of something and one step closer to success. The bible can't give you any of that it requires you just close you eyes and accept...Who likes to lay down and take it raise your hand??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExCBooster Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 There's also the very nice online exhibits from UCMP Berkeley. The ones on understanding science, geologic time and evolution might be particularly good. I'd also highly suggest, if you can slog through it, On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin. The reason it's such a door-stopping tome, of course, is that he had a boatload of evidence to present, he knew he'd meet some stiff resistance, and he wanted to be extra thorough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSpiritualPilgrim Posted September 18, 2013 Author Share Posted September 18, 2013 Here's his latest reply: re: “So are you denying the existence of human subspecies?”There were never any human subspecies. Thanks for the clever graphics it looks great on paper. But you have only assembled creatures of your making from a jumbled bone graveyard. You have assigned ages to layers of sediment which were all put down in the same year – the year of the Global Deluge. re: From my research …I think Francis Collins, director of NIH has a much better perspective. The basic idea is the the DNA sequence is a code or program for a living organism. You can disrupt it somewhat but this always results in the loss of information or devolution rather than evolution. re: Also look into ring species:Interesting research but they are all still Larus Gulls. I'm done talking with this guy. He is clearly delusional and not willing to accept any true scientific studies that contradict his religious book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 Hey Pilgrim! You may be done with this guy, but if you still want to sharpen up on genetics, how about this? http://www.christianforums.com/f143/ This is the 'Origins Theology' sub-forum of that site. It's where Creationist Christians and Theistic Evolutionist Christians (no non-Christians allowed) exercise their "brotherly love" for each other by trying to prove the other wrong. I cite this link because it'll give you the opportunity to lurk and see which arguments both sides use to condemn persuade each other. In other words, you can see for yourself the strengths and weaknesses of both sides and learn about both mindsets in doing so. Also, the TE's there are very well-informed about genetics and evolution as well as being razor sharp on scriptural matters. I'd recommend paying close attention to the posts of TE's like Papias, Gluadys, the Assyrian, Willtor, Progmonk, Shernren, Philadiddle and Lucaspa (a Biochemist working in stem cell research). Hope this helps! Thanks, BAA p.s. One of the hard-core Creationists there (AV1611VET) is on record as saying... "I deny that I'm a Homo Sapien and a mammal!". . . . Deja vu, much... ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts