Please help me defeat a creationist argument!

[RazzSpazz]

A friend of mine sent me this example after we debated a few points of Evolution versus Creationism earlier today.

"Evolutionists claim that man has evolved from an ape-like ancestor over 6 million years; therefore if we allow an average of 10 years for each generation, then there would have been 600,000 generations. Every generation would have to have a mutational genetic change of 200 base pairs to turn an ape into a man.[2] There is no evidence of this genetic drift in the present day human or chimp genome. What is more is that natural selection claims that such mutations would be entirely random, but to turn an ape into a man would be a progressive improvement from a non-sapient animal into a sapient human being."

http://www.csm.org.uk/news.php?viewmessage=33

How should I respond to a statement such as this? Thanks in advance.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
A friend of mine sent me this example after we debated a few points of Evolution versus Creationism earlier today.

"Evolutionists claim that man has evolved from an ape-like ancestor over 6 million years; therefore if we allow an average of 10 years for each generation, then there would have been 600,000 generations. Every generation would have to have a mutational genetic change of 200 base pairs to turn an ape into a man.[2] There is no evidence of this genetic drift in the present day human or chimp genome. What is more is that natural selection claims that such mutations would be entirely random, but to turn an ape into a man would be a progressive improvement from a non-sapient animal into a sapient human being."

http://www.csm.org.uk/news.php?viewmessage=33

How should I respond to a statement such as this? Thanks in advance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Start here, then try:

#1
#2
#3

[Ben K]

Quick read of the article. The 200 base pairs change comes from a 4% difference but you'll notice the figure for functional DNA (stuff that contributes to differences rather than useless) is only 1.2%.

Second, (tho I'm not positive of this), the chimp isn't our closest ancestor and so isn't the 'starting' point for the time frame given.

Third, the frickin' chimp is evolving too. It makes half the changes, we make half the changes so we go from a common ancestor to man today and chimp today. Of course, it needn't be half and half.

Fourth, there's nothing to say mutations can't happen in groups, natural selection acts after the changes have happened.

Fifth, we're under different selection pressures now. When we first came down out of the trees we encountered a totally new evironment and so the selection pressure was huge. We've adapted now so the rates of change are different.

Ok, I'll stop here because these are just thoughts rather than me having any detailed knowledge.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
A friend of mine sent me this example after we debated a few points of Evolution versus Creationism earlier today.

"Evolutionists claim that man has evolved from an ape-like ancestor over 6 million years; therefore if we allow an average of 10 years for each generation, then there would have been 600,000 generations. Every generation would have to have a mutational genetic change of 200 base pairs to turn an ape into a man.[2] There is no evidence of this genetic drift in the present day human or chimp genome. What is more is that natural selection claims that such mutations would be entirely random, but to turn an ape into a man would be a progressive improvement from a non-sapient animal into a sapient human being."

http://www.csm.org.uk/news.php?viewmessage=33

How should I respond to a statement such as this? Thanks in advance.

[/ QUOTE ]


You ask him how he thinks that the observed evolution came about. And then you tell him that 'goddidit' is not knowledge.

[vhawk01]

Yeah, the "200 base pairs" number is so meaningless, when we have no idea what he specifically has in mind for that. Is that a lot? How many base pairs do my dad and I differ by? How about my neighbor and I?

[RazzSpazz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A friend of mine sent me this example after we debated a few points of Evolution versus Creationism earlier today.

"Evolutionists claim that man has evolved from an ape-like ancestor over 6 million years; therefore if we allow an average of 10 years for each generation, then there would have been 600,000 generations. Every generation would have to have a mutational genetic change of 200 base pairs to turn an ape into a man.[2] There is no evidence of this genetic drift in the present day human or chimp genome. What is more is that natural selection claims that such mutations would be entirely random, but to turn an ape into a man would be a progressive improvement from a non-sapient animal into a sapient human being."

http://www.csm.org.uk/news.php?viewmessage=33

How should I respond to a statement such as this? Thanks in advance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Start here, then try:

#1
#2
#3

[/ QUOTE ]

This helps a bunch.

The talkorigins site is awesome. Hopefully he'll have renounced his faith after reading the arguments against every claim he made to me. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Ben K]

Sixth, genetic drift is a different topic to mutation and subsequent survival.

Seventh, sapient means to act with judgement. Chimps are sapient. Exaggerating our humaness may make the differences seem incredible but we really should drop the ego and ackknowledge we're not that much different. Do we know how much change is required to get our minds? Surely, it's not much given that we often throw up humans with less than chimp-like intelligence....

[RazzSpazz]

[ QUOTE ]
Quick read of the article. The 200 base pairs change comes from a 4% difference but you'll notice the figure for functional DNA (stuff that contributes to differences rather than useless) is only 1.2%.

Second, (tho I'm not positive of this), the chimp isn't our closest ancestor and so isn't the 'starting' point for the time frame given.

Third, the frickin' chimp is evolving too. It makes half the changes, we make half the changes so we go from a common ancestor to man today and chimp today. Of course, it needn't be half and half.

Fourth, there's nothing to say mutations can't happen in groups, natural selection acts after the changes have happened.

Fifth, we're under different selection pressures now. When we first came down out of the trees we encountered a totally new evironment and so the selection pressure was huge. We've adapted now so the rates of change are different.

Ok, I'll stop here because these are just thoughts rather than me having any detailed knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was thinking along the same lines. These creationist arguments are worded in such a way that makes it difficult to respond to immediately. Also, I just found out the Chimp IS our closest relative according to my Biology textbook.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
Second, (tho I'm not positive of this), the chimp isn't our closest ancestor and so isn't the 'starting' point for the time frame given.

[/ QUOTE ]
Chimps aren't "ancestors" (of man) at all: they are coeval with man. But what I find especially interesting is not that chimps are man's closest living relative, but rather the fact that the reverse is also true: the closest (genetic) relative of chimps is man. Not gorillas or gibbons or something. In other words, if a scientifically-minded chimp looks for its closest relative, it's looking for us.

Another aside: in addition to their technical aptitudes (EG tool manufacture), there's also evidence that chimpanzees are finding religion. (Sixth paragraph under the heading "Today we know those philosophers and ethicists were completely wrong". Source.)

To OP: I don't know if any of the above will help win the argument for you, but as a last resort, you could always shuffle, crablike, back and forth; pull up tufts of grass and weeds while hooting and otherwise making a ruckus; and if necessary, even bluff-charge your antagonist. If none of that works, expose your erect penis and glare at him (or her, I guess). That should put him in his place.

[Jiggymike]

First of all, I read the OP link and LOL at this whole thing. Although I don't mind arguing ID vs. evolution with an intelligent, open minded person, this is just poor reasoning that is expected to be viewed as "science" because they are talking about OTHER science and quoting figures. I have no idea how a lot of similarity proves either point; evolution could have lead to similarity in the genome and so could creation. Honestly, when scientists quote numbers and facts like this to "prove" evolution, I'm not sure they are much smarter than the fundamental creationists (the dumb ones, that is). In fact, the creationists are probably right about no DNA being "junk", although it also isn't necessarily "necessary for the function of the individual."

Now onto their math and science. I'm actually not quite sure what they mean with their base pair #; one frameshift in a gene (one event) could lead to thousands of base pair differences, and one rearrangement event is not ONE change but could in fact represent thousands or hundreds of thousands. This article does not quote where or how the DNA differs, which is extremely important, especially since they are talking about non-coding DNA which is relatively malleable (at least it appears that way). They constantly talk of "progressive" evolution...obviously, evolution to a scientist is not progressive, it is just change that moves in a direction with the guidance of natural selection and genetic drift. The term "progressive" implies directional evolution from ape to human, which is scientifically incorrect by the theory of evolution.

In the next paragraph, they talk about gene pools and small populations as if this has any bearing on the subject; it does not. What probably happened in the human/chimp split was that the common ancestor of both became isolated either in habitat or behavior, eventually leading to the lineages we have today. The ancestor did not turn into a chimp and a human overnight; instead, many other species existed on the lineage to both chimps and humans. Small populations are NOT requisites for speciation but they do increase the chance of speciation, as a small population broken off from the main contingent will have a different genetic makeup than the overall species (by chance). Over time, this smaller population will inbreed but this will not necessarily kill them off; instead, the genetic frequencies will become very different than in the main population and eventually the two can become reproductively isolated, forming 2 separate species. However, this does not mean that it ONLY occurs when there is a small population, just that it is one of the major ways in which it is thought to occur. ALso they are not distinguishing between small POPULATIONS of an organism (which can have multiple populations and not be in danger of dying off if one or two or even most populations are small) and small numbers of an organism overall. Currently the number of great apes is vastly reduced in the wild in total and there is some fear that wild chimpanzees will go extinct due to human hunting plus Ebola outbreaks plus habitat destruction.

I guarantee you can bring up all these facts to your friend and he will find some other non-scientific way of explaining it away, or demand proof of these things while offering no proof of his own.