References preferred when overturning modern biology

The chance to have email debates with creationists is one of the reasons I write this blog – I’m a debate junkie, actually. Nothing’s better than sinking your teeth into a few new arguments that you’ve never heard of, or at least taking the time to explain the problems with some of the classics, hence I jumped at the chance to debate Micah. He first contacted me asking if I wanted to have a discussion with him about evolutionary theory and creationism. How could I refuse?

The following is the entire email conversation we had. It still might not be finished… but you can find out about that aspect of it at the end.

To the creationists reading this, and I know there are at least a few, please take note of what you are about to read – hopefully it will give you a few guidelines as to how you should approach debating someone about evolutionary theory.

Let the games begin.

(These emails have been basically copy-pasted, so any spelling mistakes in Micah’s emails are his, and any in mine are, regrettably, mine.)

—-

Micah’s first email

I stumbled upon your site and you had a link that was challenging creationists. I will gladly discuss creation vs evolution with you. Why don’t you start off by giving me your best evidence for evolution. Thanks!!

—-

My first email

Hi Micah,

I’ll be happy to discuss creationism and evolutionary theory with you. However, before we start in an email discussion, I was wondering if you would rather have it in the comments on my blog, Homologous Legs. I feel that the most beneficial discussions are ones that get others to think, and private discussions are limited in their use. If not, and I can understand why you would prefer an email discussion instead, we don’t have to.

If you want to have an email discussion free from the intervening comments of others, I can always post the discussion on the blog after it is finished, in order for other people to see it. Of course, if you don’t want me to do that, I again don’t have to.

Thanks for taking the time to email me.

—-

Micah’s second email

I would rather debate through email, but I have no problem with you posting it on your site. Speaking of homologous legs, are you talking about whales having a vestigial pelvis?

—-

My second email

The name of my blog is “Homologous Legs: The Evidence for a Common Ancestor Between Tables and Chairs”, and it’s intended as some sort of witty title – applying the theory of evolution to furniture, saying that tables and chairs shared a common ancestor and that part of the evidence for this is that they both have the homologous structure of their legs.

Homologous structures aren’t the same as vestigial structures – they are commonly inherited structures that closely related taxonomic groups share. The homologous structure of the tetrapod leg is found in all tetrapods – the bone structure of the fins of whales is very similar to the bone structures in the legs of terrestrial mammals, even though they are not legs anymore. The bone structure of the hands of mammals is another homologous structure – bats wings have altered, but still recognizably similar, bone structures of other mammals like humans. These homologous characteristics are evidence of common ancestry – ie. the common ancestor between whales and terrestrial mammals had a bone structure in their leg similar to both, hence the similarities.

Vestigial structures are slightly different. When something is vestigial, it means that it has lost its primary function throughout the course of its evolutionary history. The whale pelvis is vestigial, as it no longer holds the function of attaching the bones of legs (which were lost over evolutionary history) to the rest of the skeleton. It may have some other functions, like holding muscles in place, like another vestigial structure, the human coccyx, but its primary function has been lost.

Vestigial structures are *similar* to homologous structures, as vestigial structures are usually found to have homologous, functioning counterparts in related taxons, but, as I’ve explained, they’re not the same.

Now, you said in your first email you stated “Why don’t you start off by giving me your best evidence for evolution”. I don’t want to start off the discussion this way, and here’s why: in most, if not all, discussions I’ve had with creationists about evolutionary theory, the creationist has had some misunderstanding about what evolution actually is. So, in order to clear that up right from the start, I’d like you to quickly define evolutionary theory as you understand it. I promise you, this will help eliminate any confusion later on.

—-

Micah’s third email

I have a great understanding of what evolution theory proposes, I debate evolutionists everyday on youtube. I’d like to debate DonExodus2, Thunderf00t, AronRa, etc. I’ve debunked several of Don’s videos, but he never responds.

First off, Homologous structures could just as easily prove a common designer, and actually we know from HOX genes that birds being related to reptiles is pure fantasy among many other supposed relationships. Now onto vestigial structures.

Human Tailbone- Is not vestigial- there are 9 muscles that attach to the tailbone and without which you cannot perform vital functions. Saying we used to have a tail is simply an assumption and there is no scientific evidence to back up this claim
Human appendix- Is not vestigial- the appendix is apart of the immune system and if taken out you have a greater chance of getting many diseases such as leukemia, hodgkins disease, cancer of the colon, and cancer of the ovaries.
Whale pelvis- Is not vestigial, without those bones that attach to special muscles, the whales cannot reproduce, they have absolutely nothing to do with walking on land, they are used in reproduction.
Snake reduced hind legs- These are not hind legs, they are small claws that the snakes use to position themselves during mating, they have nothing to do with walking on land.

To answer what evolution theory is, evolution theory states organisms evolve from simplier to complex through random mutation, natural selection. And that ultimately we are related to every organism on this planet, that’s a simple version.

Trust me, I understand it fully. If you want to, you can go ahead and give me your best evidence, I’m sure it has something to do with a word that starts with C and and the number 2.

—-

My third email

Okay, you’ve strayed into the question of what intelligent design creationism actually is. You say that homologous structures just as easily prove a designer, but you’re looking at things the wrong way. Let me ask you this, what *doesn’t* “prove” a designer? Anything is compatible with the notion of intelligent design – if there weren’t similarities between organisms, you would chalk that up as being proof that there was a designer, as evolution should show some similarities.

When people debate “evolution and creation” it really should be two separate discussions – “Does evolution predict the evidence we find and is therefore supported as a scientific theory?” and “Can intelligent design creationism actually explain anything in a scientific manner?” I’d LOVE to stick to the first one for the most part, as mixing the two only leads to mistakes in logic – creationism doesn’t automatically step in when evolution supposedly fails. Saying something like “homologous structures could just as easily prove a common designer” implies that it’s evolution vs. creationism in a dichotomous sense. It’s NOT. I’m not saying that they are compatible, but I am saying that you can’t interject against evidence for evolution saying that it also supports creationism. I’d like for the discussion to remain clear of that.

You said:

HOX genes that birds being related to reptiles is pure fantasy among many other supposed relationships.

Please explain that. I have heard no such thing, and I’m interested in where you’re getting your data from.

Human Tailbone- Is not vestigial- there are 9 muscles that attach to the tailbone and without which you cannot perform vital functions. Saying we used to have a tail is simply an assumption and there is no scientific evidence to back up this claim

You’re again thinking about things the wrong way. Evolution predicts that such structures would exist – things that look similar to others but don’t have that primary function anymore. Remember, a structure does not need to lose every function to be vestigial, it just has to lose a primary function.

The coccyx is VERY similar in terms of structure to the tails of monkeys and other tailed primates. Human embryos also possess tails during stages 14 to 22 of embryogenesis (embryo development), which confirms that they possess the genes required to have a tail in their phenotype – why would they have such genes if their evolutionary ancestors did not have tails? This is all predicted by evolutionary theory, and is strong evidence for its validity to explain the diversity of life on Earth.

Human appendix- Is not vestigial- the appendix is apart of the immune system and if taken out you have a greater chance of getting many diseases such as leukemia, hodgkins disease, cancer of the colon, and cancer of the ovaries.

The appendix is also vestigial – it used to be part of the caecum. I’d again like you to provide me with the data that backs up your claims about the immune function of the appendix. I know that secondary functions of the appendix are related to the lymphatic system and immunity, but this is the case with all of the large and small intestines – they are all riddled with lymph nodes and hence have an immune function. But a claim that the removal of the appendix facilitates cancer… I haven’t heard of any such studies. Please link them to me if you can. Sorry, but I’m not going to take your word for it – that’s a massive claim that I have heard nothing about.

Whale pelvis- Is not vestigial, without those bones that attach to special muscles, the whales cannot reproduce, they have absolutely nothing to do with walking on land, they are used in reproduction.

The whale pelvis, again, does not have to have no function to be vestigial. The pelvises of all mammals have the same functions as the whale pelvis, with the added function of the attachment of leg bones to it (whales actually do have small leg bones as well that really do have no function – I suggest that these are even more striking examples of vestigiality). Why is this structure so similar to the terrestrial mammal pelvis? Evolution predicts that such a structure points towards an evolutionary relationship with terrestrial mammals.

Snake reduced hind legs- These are not hind legs, they are small claws that the snakes use to position themselves during mating, they have nothing to do with walking on land.

Snakes possess the full genetic ability to develop legs during embryo development – why do they have this when they are not usually developed? Phylogenetic analysis suggests that snakes are closely related to limbed reptiles – and so they have simply switched off the genes required to make legs while keeping them in the genome. They ARE vestigial.

To answer what evolution theory is, evolution theory states organisms evolve from simplier to complex through random mutation, natural selection. And that ultimately we are related to every organism on this planet, that’s a simple version.

Okay, I’ll accept that for now. Good definition.

Trust me, I understand it fully. If you want to, you can go ahead and give me your best evidence, I’m sure it has something to do with a word that starts with C and and the number 2.

What, Chromosome No. 2 in humans? Yeah, that’s rather good evidence. But I’m not going to use that just yet – it’s great evidence, but I have something that is more convincing. I’ll send another email tomorrow, I really have to go now. Try not to respond to the claims in this email until I send you the next email – unless you want me to keep “my evidence” until later – I’d rather only have one email discussion going at any one time.

—-

Micah’s fourth email

You say that vestigial structures mean that they no longer have the function they once had, that’s assumption, not science. Your assuming based on your theory that we used to have tails. Snakes do not have the genes for making legs, Even if snakes did ever have legs, the bible talks about God cursing snakes for what Satan did. Please show me where you get that information. It should be common knowledge that the appendix is not vestigial, just do a google search, they even had an article on yahoo about it. Also vestigial structures cannot be evidence for evolution, that’s losing, not gaining, your assuming they have a previous function based on the theory you believe in.

This video should explain HOX genes relating to birds and reptiles.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEveJGakusQ&feature=channel_page

You’ve heard no such thing because evidence against evolution is censored out.

I’ll refute chromosome 2/us being related to apes.

1) The HOX genes of humans and apes are in different locations in their chromosomes, and in different chromosomes! By itself, this proves human and ape DNA could not be related.
2) Cannot be proven to be a merger of chromosomes. It is assumed
3) Chromosome fusion in embryons (human for example) is fatal. When it occurs in infants or older people [I'd just like to point out at this point that a chromosomal disorder in an older person would only be in a somatic cell, and as such... would kill only that one cell. It wouldn't cause death, as Micah is about to claim.], it causes grotesquely deforming disease or death. Such a thing cannot be considered beneficial or any kind of mechanism for evolutionary change. In fact, Natural Slelection would weed such deformed and dysfunctional organisms out of the genome.
4) Human chromosome 2 and chimp chromosome 2 are not in the exact same location in their geneomes by nucleotide number, very close but not exactly
5) Chimps have 10% more DNA than humans
6) Humans have 200,000 protiens. 80% of our protiens do not exist in apes! Yes, 80% (Gene volume 346 14 February 2005, Pages 215-219). Biochemically, we are so different, that any such assumption is science fiction. Humans have flat rib cages, apes are barrel shaped. Apes have an opposed Great Toe, humans do not. Humans have a locking knee joint. No ape does, not even anything inbetween. Apes do not have the same number of caudal vertabrae as man. Even our spines are different in design!
7) Chimps are claimed to be our nearest relative, yet the locations of DNA swapping between chromosomes, known as recombination hotspots, are almost entirely different. This proves apes and humans have a genetic difference so great that our DNA cannot be related. Humans have 10% less DNA than a chimp too. If evolution were true, the opposite would be true. Evolutionism is not science. It’s assumptions and fantasy.
8 ) Chimps have more alpha-hemoglobin genes and more Rh bloodgroup genes, and fewer Alu repeats, in their genome than humans.
9) The tips of chimp chromosomes contain DNA not present at the tips of human chromosomes. Therefore, our chromosomes cannot be related, such as chromosome number 2. Evolutionist scientists are aware of these things, but they won’t tell you because it defeats their claims.

You should read this too: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/10/and_the_miller_told_his_tale_ken_miller_.html

If you want to talk about embryology, I hope you don’t mean the fake drawings by haekel proved wrong in 1874.

Also male and female whales have different bones in those areas that you claim are vestigial. I’d like to know where you are getting this information that whales have the genes for legs and snakes for legs, I’ve asked people this many times and never get an answer.

Just by basic genetics you should know that an organism cannot have a gene for something unless the parent population had it, show me an example of an organism obtaining a gene for a new morphological feature, if your answer is we do not live long enough, that’s exactly why it is not science.

Creation is absolutely scientific, it makes predictions. I’d be glad to go over anything about the creation model, such as the flood.

—-

My fourth email

You say that vestigial structures mean that they no longer have the function they once had, that’s assumption, not science. Your assuming based on your theory that we used to have tails.

I’m not – I’m just pointing out that, if we have hypothesis that humans are primates, and share a common ancestor with the other modern primates, then we would expect to see:

- the residual bone structure for the tail
- the genetic coding for a tail in our genomes

We do see those two things, so it’s evidence for the hypothesis. It’s not 100% proof, nothing is 100% proof for *anything*, but it is great evidence that supports that hypothesis. That’s what science is.

Snakes do not have the genes for making legs, Even if snakes did ever have legs, the bible talks about God cursing snakes for what Satan did. Please show me where you get that information.

I’m researching this topic as we speak. Unfortunately, as a high school student, I don’t have direct access to the scientific journals that contain the research I want to examine, and I need to go through several people who do have access. So, I’ll have more information on the limblessness of snakes in a while.

I’d rather not talk about the compatibility of snake legs with Genesis, as that has no direct impact the evolution of snakes in scientific terms. I’d rather not conflate, as I mentioned in an earlier email, these two lines of thinking, for the moment.

It should be common knowledge that the appendix is not vestigial, just do a google search, they even had an article on yahoo about it.

Please link to the article, even though I probably know what it’s talking about. A link to the article will remove any confusion though.

Also vestigial structures cannot be evidence for evolution, that’s losing, not gaining, your assuming they have a previous function based on the theory you believe in.

Evolution works both ways – organisms can both lose structures or gain them (in a sense), depending on what’s advantageous at the time in their environment. However, I realise that losing a structure is not the exact evidence for the rise in complexity over time that you would use to support that claim, but it is evidence that shows that various organisms had a common ancestor. They are two different claims, and as such have two different types of evidence.

This video should explain HOX genes relating to birds and reptiles.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEveJGakusQ&feature=channel_page

You’ve heard no such thing because evidence against evolution is censored out.

I can’t watch YouTube videos at the moment due to my capped (slowed) Internet. However, if the video links to external references, which it should it it’s based on good science, given that it’s a controversial statement, then please link them to me. Scientific papers are better than videos – they include all the data they draw their conclusions from and do not miss things.

I doubt that the scientific community would hold back such a discovery – the person who found out this lack of a link would be revered for ages to come. I’m not going to claim Nobel Prize, but they would certainly get an immediate textbook mention. Most scientists want fame, as do most people. They’re human, just like you and me.

I’ll refute chromosome 2/us being related to apes.

1) The HOX genes of humans and apes are in different locations in their chromosomes, and in different chromosomes! By itself, this proves human and ape DNA could not be related.
2) Cannot be proven to be a merger of chromosomes. It is assumed
3) Chromosome fusion in embryons (human for example) is fatal. When it occurs in infants or older people, it causes grotesquely deforming disease or death. Such a thing cannot be considered beneficial or any kind of mechanism for evolutionary change. In fact, Natural Slelection would weed such deformed and dysfunctional organisms out of the genome.
4) Human chromosome 2 and chimp chromosome 2 are not in the exact same location in their geneomes by nucleotide number, very close but not exactly
5) Chimps have 10% more DNA than humans
6) Humans have 200,000 protiens. 80% of our protiens do not exist in apes! Yes, 80% (Gene volume 346 14 February 2005, Pages 215-219). Biochemically, we are so different, that any such assumption is science fiction. Humans have flat rib cages, apes are barrel shaped. Apes have an opposed Great Toe, humans do not. Humans have a locking knee joint. No ape does, not even anything inbetween. Apes do not have the same number of caudal vertabrae as man. Even our spines are different in design!
7) Chimps are claimed to be our nearest relative, yet the locations of DNA swapping between chromosomes, known as recombination hotspots, are almost entirely different. This proves apes and humans have a genetic difference so great that our DNA cannot be related. Humans have 10% less DNA than a chimp too. If evolution were true, the opposite would be true. Evolutionism is not science. It’s assumptions and fantasy.
8 ) Chimps have more alpha-hemoglobin genes and more Rh bloodgroup genes, and fewer Alu repeats, in their genome than humans.
9) The tips of chimp chromosomes contain DNA not present at the tips of human chromosomes. Therefore, our chromosomes cannot be related, such as chromosome number 2. Evolutionist scientists are aware of these things, but they won’t tell you because it defeats their claims.

For every claim here, please tell me where you got this information from. Please link to all your sources. I’m not going to take things like this that you say without the studies that back them up.

For point 6, since you did cite a paper, I read it (through someone who has access). What you claim from the findings is technically correct, but let me explain. I’m assuming you haven’t read the paper, am I right?

This study looked at the similarities in 127 protein sequences between humans and chimpanzees, and found that 20% are identical, but 80% are not. On the face of it, that seems like evidence against evolution – how could they be so different?

However, for the proteins that were non-identical, a vast majority of them were 99% or 98% similar, which is very, very similar to the 98-99% similarity of the human/chimp genomes. As such, when you look at the proteins individually, you find out that they are remarkably similar. Just because they are not the same does not mean that they aren’t close – most of them have accrued only a smattering of amino acid changes.

If you want me to send you the paper in the next email for you to look at yourself, just tell me.

You should read this too: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/10/and_the_miller_told_his_tale_ken_miller_.html

I’ll need to read more about that. Remember, I didn’t bring up Chromosome 2, you did, so I’m not particularly familiar with every aspect of it.

If you want to talk about embryology, I hope you don’t mean the fake drawings by haekel proved wrong in 1874.

I wasn’t talking about Haekel, I was talking about embryogenesis – the development of embryos. It’s a real area of research, you do realise?

Also male and female whales have different bones in those areas that you claim are vestigial. I’d like to know where you are getting this information that whales have the genes for legs and snakes for legs, I’ve asked people this many times and never get an answer.

One of the papers I am trying to get to has research on this. It might have some answers, don’t worry.

Just by basic genetics you should know that an organism cannot have a gene for something unless the parent population had it, show me an example of an organism obtaining a gene for a new morphological feature, if your answer is we do not live long enough, that’s exactly why it is not science.

Cha-ching! – http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19041751

The yeast cells evolved completely new cytokinesis pathways in order to speed up their growth due to a researcher-inflicted genetic impairment. New genes and everything – you’d be impressed. I can get you the paper if you really want it.

Creation is absolutely scientific, it makes predictions. I’d be glad to go over anything about the creation model, such as the flood.

Hmm, alright, I’m feeling adventurous. Lay on me your Flood evidence.

—-

Micah’s fifth email

No problem,

Again, please show me where snakes have the genes for making legs and we have the genes for making tails, I’ve even looked an evolution websites and cannot find such a claim.

It’s been known for decades that HOX genes make evolution look stupid, but things such as this are not published or talked about, even if an evolutionist starts going against evolution or makes a discovery that goes against it he is cencsored about or fired, like Robert Gentry who found out that the earth never had a hot crust, or Dean Kenyon who became a creationist, he was fired.

Here’s what you fail to realize, you think just because you haven’t heard of the evidence, it’s not valid and doesn’t exist. The problem is anything that goes against the sacred cow of evolution is not publish in prominant scientific publications.

I think in the last email you talked about the embryo having a tail etc. Once again you don’t look for evidence that goes against what you are saying. This is a creationist website, I’m sure you would rather look on an evolutionist website, but once again they won’t publish such material.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c024.html

I got most of my information about Chromosome 2 from the oxford university website, everything I said is 100% true.

you talked about some of the ape proteins being 98% similiar, you have no idea how proteins form do you? Protein folds are extremely complex and have to be folded in a precise order to be functional, so in other words the function is already set before it attempts to fold, where is this information coming from? DNA itself is nothing but information.

Appendix- http://creation.com/do-any-vestigial-organs-exist-in-humans

Yahoo article, I think it may be expired but here’s the link: http://buzz.yahoo.com/article/1:y_news:ab221d5ab943eadc4209e295d0a53673/The-Appendix-Useful-and-in-Fact-Pro

Watch my video when you can, just the fact that HOX genes show that reptiles and birds and humans and apes cannot be related throws the entire theory out the window. I’ve talked to people who actually know a little about HOX genes and they don’t have a response to it. I know you think that Creation is dumb and the bible is nothing but a fairy tale, but I can promise you is the most real thing I’ve ever seen. Many people can’t fathom what reality is. The only reason you like evolution so much is because you are running from God and don’t like his moral law, no you can get mad at me all you want for saying that, but you know it’s the truth. When true christians, I say true christians, because everyone in America thinks they are a christian but aren’t, say that someone is born again, it’s for a reason. If you could see the supernatural change in a persons life maybe you wouldn’t have the attitude about the bible and God that you have now. I’ll be the first one to say that there is a problem with American christianity, there’s not a lot of churches in America, there are a lot of nice brick buildings with nice lawns.

—-

My fifth email

Again, please show me where snakes have the genes for making legs and we have the genes for making tails, I’ve even looked an evolution websites and cannot find such a claim.

I’m trying to get the papers for that. Like I said, I don’t have journal access.

It’s been known for decades that HOX genes make evolution look stupid, but things such as this are not published or talked about, even if an evolutionist starts going against evolution or makes a discovery that goes against it he is cencsored about or fired, like Robert Gentry who found out that the earth never had a hot crust, or Dean Kenyon who became a creationist, he was fired.

Here’s what you fail to realize, you think just because you haven’t heard of the evidence, it’s not valid and doesn’t exist. The problem is anything that goes against the sacred cow of evolution is not publish in prominant scientific publications.

I’m really sorry, but I can’t accept something like that as is. That’s an unfalsifiable conspiracy claim, if you don’t have any proof. Due to the nature of science, I can’t accept your word for the fact that scientists are suppressing information – I need evidence for that. Do you have any? Be warned though, I’m not likely to believe you, unless the proof is really quite substantial.

I think in the last email you talked about the embryo having a tail etc. Once again you don’t look for evidence that goes against what you are saying. This is a creationist website, I’m sure you would rather look on an evolutionist website, but once again they won’t publish such material.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c024.html

I’ve looked at the site, and it links to no scientific papers. However, this site does. You may have heard of it: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms_ex2 If not, I implore you to read it. It links to so many papers I don’t want to link to them, but here’s just a selection:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7430236&dopt=Abstract (This paper includes a human tail with vertebrae)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6373560&dopt=Abstract

you talked about some of the ape proteins being 98% similiar, you have no idea how proteins form do you? Protein folds are extremely complex and have to be folded in a precise order to be functional, so in other words the function is already set before it attempts to fold, where is this information coming from? DNA itself is nothing but information.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h38Xi-Jz9yk

Again, I can’t watch YouTube videos due to my Internet being capped. If there are any references in that video that can be linked to, please do that.

Proteins do not have a “set function”. I don’t know where you’re getting this idea from. If you could link me to the papers that have lead you to this conclusion, then please do.

Most proteins fold themselves according to their amino acid sequence, so mutations that alter the sequence will alter folding, yes, but that’s whole point of mutations in evolution. However, not every amino acid change will dramatically change the structure of the protein.

Look at the various types of haemoglobin in mammals – they all carry oxygen in the blood, but they are also all different in terms of their amino acid sequence. They’re not radically different, but different enough, and you can actually “date” the last common ancestors of various mammals by comparing their haemoglobin sequences – these phylogenies match up with other phylogenies produced through separate methods like the fossil record and non-coding DNA analysis. This is great evidence for evolution occurring – the convergence of various dating methods.

Appendix- http://creation.com/do-any-vestigial-organs-exist-in-humans

I’ve already refuted the claims made here.

Yahoo article, I think it may be expired but here’s the link: http://buzz.yahoo.com/article/1:y_news:ab221d5ab943eadc4209e295d0a53673/The-Appendix-Useful-and-in-Fact-Pro

Just more of the same about the appendix.

Watch my video when you can, just the fact that HOX genes show that reptiles and birds and humans and apes cannot be related throws the entire theory out the window. I’ve talked to people who actually know a little about HOX genes and they don’t have a response to it.

Is it *your* video? Hmm, if it is, please link to me the papers you used as an information source for the video. I think they’d be better than the video, if just for myself.

I know you think that Creation is dumb and the bible is nothing but a fairy tale, but I can promise you is the most real thing I’ve ever seen. Many people can’t fathom what reality is.

This has nothing to do with the fact of evolution. My thoughts on the Bible are irrelevant to the science of evolutionary biology.

The only reason you like evolution so much is because you are running from God and don’t like his moral law, no you can get mad at me all you want for saying that, but you know it’s the truth.

Nice scenario you have here – if I get “angry” (or just a little annoyed) at your blatant mischaracterization of me, I therefore really do know it’s true, and if I don’t get angry, I also know it’s true. What would convince you that I don’t think God exists and that “I’m running from his moral law”? You do realise that if I knew Hell existed I would believe in God and do whatever I could to stop myself from going there? Nobody sane would willingly accept infinite punishment, myself included, thank you very much.

When true christians, I say true christians, because everyone in America thinks they are a christian but aren’t, say that someone is born again, it’s for a reason. If you could see the supernatural change in a persons life maybe you wouldn’t have the attitude about the bible and God that you have now. I’ll be the first one to say that there is a problem with American christianity, there’s not a lot of churches in America, there are a lot of nice brick buildings with nice lawns.

This is all irrelevant to evolution. You said you wanted to discuss evolution, but I only see a little bit of that going on.

I notice that you have ignored some of the things I have said.

1. You haven’t linked me to the papers for all of those chimpanzee genetics claims. I would really like those.
2. You sidestepped the point I made about the “80% of proteins different” study – you started talking about an irrelevant point. Do you concede that that study doesn’t refute evolution?
3. Do you acknowledge that I gave you an example of new genetic information via this study -  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19041751 ?

Discussions are supposed to produce an exchange of ideas. You clearly haven’t been analysing the information I’ve given you, and you haven’t given me much to analyse myself.

—-

Micah’s sixth email

So in other words I’m not giving you the information because you can’t watch youtube and as usual won’t look at a christian website. I’ve looked at nearly everything on talkorigins. The information I sent you about the embryo having tails etc. is there, you can probably find it in other places, and ofcourse if you don’t like the information you have to ask for a peer review etc. We can get into radiometric dating, but then again you can’t watch youtube videos so I guess I can’t show you too much. I’m not making fun of you but how can this be a debate when you can’t even watch my evidence? And then you act like I’m not providing anything.

—-

My sixth email

Your evidence is not scientific. It might be true, but you haven’t given me any studies that are scientifically valid. If your information is correctly sourced, you should be able to supply it. Referring me to Christian websites which do not supply those papers is not “giving me information”. I want papers. Anything else is unsourced… heresay.

I’m sorry if I sound like I’m dismissive, but I’m being serious when I say that you will not convince any scientist or educated person unless you supply real scientific research.

—-

And that’s where the discussion was left. As of the time of writing, I haven’t received another email from Micah. Hopefully he’s simply gathering the references I asked him for.

If any creationists are still reading this, heed the advice given in this email: always give references. Like it or not, you’re trying to convince someone that the bedrock of modern biology is incorrect, so having at least the decency to show where you’re getting your information from would be a nice start. Papers are optional, but preferred.

If you feel like emailing me for a discussion about evolutionary biology and creationism, my email address is in the sidebar, to the right. You may have to scroll up a little bit.

Extra special thanks to @DrBaka on Twitter for supplying me with the scientific papers that I needed to read in order to have this debate. You should all follow him if you use Twitter – he’s an evolutionary biology grad student, and that, plus other things, makes him awesome.

The chance to have email debates with creationists is one of the reasons I write this blog – I’m a debate junkie, actually. Nothing’s better than sinking your teeth into...