My first real debate with a YEC

[Darth Wong]

Actually, while we have a lesser number of chromosomes, evidence suggests that we have a chromosome that is, essentially, just two chimp chromosomes fused together. Therefore, we have roughly the same amount of "information" as a chimp does in our genes, not less.

Good point; perhaps the best way to put this (in the unlikely event that he's savvy enough to bring this up as an objection) is that he believes we are more advanced than apes (a question to which he will undoubtedly say yes) so how does he explain the fact that we have the same amount of DNA material as the apes do.

[tharkûn]

Mutations are transcription errors and/or multiplied chromosomes.

No. Transcription is DNA -> RNA and is an extremely transient process. Mutations are changes in the genetic material of cells. That can occur through a vast list of mechanisms, the most common being the simple point mutation error during replication (it is also easily corrected by most cells).

but most of the time it is either neutral (either the codon that was changed didn't affect what it codes for or the change was so minute that everything works all right enough), or rarely beneficial (like antibiotic resistant bacteria).

Most mutations are neutral, namely because they fall into the "junk DNA" which isn't transcribed or at least translated.

Of those that have an observable effect, by far harmful ones grossly outweigh beneficial ones. It is much easier to dick the body up than to improve its function.

I can't cite any examples offhand, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if a single codon was accidently inserted into a length of DNA everyonce in a while

Exceedingly rare. Most insertion errors occur at a single BP scale, of those that don't most involve large scale errors rather than single codons. Single codons are two large for most of the simple chemical mistakes and too small for many of the more fun mechanisms.

To return to my book transcription analogy: a typo or repeated paragraph usually doesn't detract from a book too much, does it? A repeated chapter, though, or (assuming we're doing transcription with a typewriter or computer) having a hand on the wrong area of a keyboard for touchtyping resulting in yrcy yjsy ;ppld ;olr yjod ("text that looks like this") would obviously make the book either more difficult to read (repeated chapter) or nigh-impossible to read (hands in the wrong place).

Very poor analogy, and if the other guy knows genetics or biochemistry will be an easy attack. Adding a duplicate gene rarely amounts to much, perhaps a bit of upregulation in the associated protein(s). Inserting a single BP into a gene causes frame shift and destroys the entire genetic structure. Having a typo (one BP converting to another) can result in unpredictable change (the new codon results in a new amino acid and it is not predictable what function will change), no change (the new codon codes for the same amino acid), obliterates part of the gene (the new codon is a stop codon), or obliterates the whole gene (the initial Meth codon is changed); I'm ignoring the fun of regulation, splicing, etc.

There's also that "reshuffling" taking place, but that's where the mutations occur too, because that's when genes are being unraveled and copied. That just so happens to be the time when mutations occur.

A, not "the". In any event reshuffling can give rise to new alleles on its own. It is quite common for Holliday junctions to form in DNA. Rather than explain this I think demo is far quicker to comprehend:

http://engels.genetics.wisc.edu/Hollida ... day3D.html

You will notice that no "errors" occur during resolution, but because duplexes need not be identical resolution of a Holliday junction can lead to new alleles if the break points occur within a gene locus for which the individual is heterozygous.

[Akhlut]

No. Transcription is DNA -> RNA and is an extremely transient process. Mutations are changes in the genetic material of cells. That can occur through a vast list of mechanisms, the most common being the simple point mutation error during replication (it is also easily corrected by most cells).

D'oh, wrong term used. My bad.

Most mutations are neutral, namely because they fall into the "junk DNA" which isn't transcribed or at least translated.

Of those that have an observable effect, by far harmful ones grossly outweigh beneficial ones. It is much easier to dick the body up than to improve its function.

Yeah, I'll agree. Hence my citing the not insignificant miscarriage rate.

Very poor analogy, and if the other guy knows genetics or biochemistry will be an easy attack.

Well, he is a high school physics teacher...

A, not "the". In any event reshuffling can give rise to new alleles on its own. It is quite common for Holliday junctions to form in DNA. Rather than explain this I think demo is far quicker to comprehend:

http://engels.genetics.wisc.edu/Hollida ... day3D.html

You will notice that no "errors" occur during resolution, but because duplexes need not be identical resolution of a Holliday junction can lead to new alleles if the break points occur within a gene locus for which the individual is heterozygous.

My bad again. Thanks for the link and the info in general.

[mr friendly guy]

You know, if he is trying to argue that ID should be taught along with evolution you might be able to outmanouvre him.

Since you both agree evolution should be taught, the only disagreement is that ID should be taught. In that case press him on the issue - he should be justify why ID should be taught as a science. You may be able to avoid arguing points on evolution, but just go on the attack against ID. Ask him what makes something a science, and ask him to show why ID fits the criteria.

[General Zod]

You know, if he is trying to argue that ID should be taught along with evolution you might be able to outmanouvre him.

Since you both agree evolution should be taught, the only disagreement is that ID should be taught. In that case press him on the issue - he should be justify why ID should be taught as a science. You may be able to avoid arguing points on evolution, but just go on the attack against ID. Ask him what makes something a science, and ask him to show why ID fits the criteria.

Isn't it a little bit late to offer this bit of advice seeing that he already had the debate?

[wolveraptor]

^He's having another.

I'll tell you, if you win this one, immortality awaits you.

[mr friendly guy]

You know, if he is trying to argue that ID should be taught along with evolution you might be able to outmanouvre him.

Since you both agree evolution should be taught, the only disagreement is that ID should be taught. In that case press him on the issue - he should be justify why ID should be taught as a science. You may be able to avoid arguing points on evolution, but just go on the attack against ID. Ask him what makes something a science, and ask him to show why ID fits the criteria.

Isn't it a little bit late to offer this bit of advice seeing that he already had the debate?

Er, have you read the more recent posts? Because his physics teacher loved getting his arse kicked so much, he has come back for round 2. Since its not likely he will stick to the same strategy and will most likely use rhetoric (the 2nd debate would be held in more favourable conditions to the YEC side since its the teacher's school) its a good idea for Superboy to also change strategy.

[wautd]

The whole forum will pray for you Superboy or, depending on the members, sacrifice a virgin or their first born

[Cyborg Stan]

I don't have much time and even worse I'm at a public computer, so I'll try to make this brief : during the debate (probably at the very end), challenge him to an online (Probably e-mail) debate. No games, no tricks. Furthermore, offer to mirror it on your own site. (It would be important for said site to be easy to remember. Because of this, unless you have your own domain name handy, I would suggest using a redirect URL.) Finally, you may be able to set up your own forum. You'd get people ranging from curious to those wanting to smite the infidel, and then you can give them all the arguments, explanations, and URL you desire.

[sketerpot]

Er, have you read the more recent posts? Because his physics teacher loved getting his arse kicked so much, he has come back for round 2. Since its not likely he will stick to the same strategy and will most likely use rhetoric (the 2nd debate would be held in more favourable conditions to the YEC side since its the teacher's school) its a good idea for Superboy to also change strategy.

If the students aren't too fond of this guy, they may be friendly to Superboy just because they want to see someone beat the rhetorical tar out of a teacher.

Good luck, Superboy!

[Keevan_Colton]

The whole forum will pray for you Superboy or, depending on the members, sacrifice a virgin or somebody's first born

[Yogi]

For the "no new information" problem, Talk Origins has specific coutnerexamples that can be used.

[drachefly]

To clarify Tharkun's point:

In physics information is a conserved quantity related to the log of the distinguishable states.

This is only one of the kinds of information in physics -- the one pertaining to the Liouville theorem of the incompressibility of phase space. That is, of all the possibilities of the ways a system could be arranged, physics moves one into another without changing the overall density... i.e. the universe does not converge into any one state, nor diverge from any one state.

The somewhat more relevant definition for one's purposes here is the Entropy, which Shannon related to information. This is utterly not conserved, and the second law of thermodynamics is that it always increases (though not uniformly).

However, entropy in general is not what life needs -- it needs enough randomness to contain its information, but it needs not to have that information be destroyed.

So, I'd recommend against saying that information is entropy, because he'll be able to come back with 'so, setting yourself on fire should increase your information content', which would get people laughing at you this time.

Instead, make sure you simply point out specific mechanisms which minimally invasively increase the information present, in such a way as to maximize the likelihood of positive utility.

[Big Phil]

I was listening to the Dorrie Monson show yesterday on KIRO-710 (talk radio here in Seattle), and he had a guy from the Discovery Institute debating a UW professor on intelligent design.

I don't know that the debate changed anyone's mind, but the problem I had with the debate was that the scientist was a lousy debator and get getting exasperated, while the Discovery Institute guy presented himself and his case better. I got so that I was yelling at the radio because the UW professor couldn't make his case without sounding whiny, and he frequently refused to answer certain questions and got annoyed. There was one point where the ID guy answered a completely different question than what he was asked, but the scientist didn't call him on it. Just annoying...

This is a major problem with the ID/evolution debate. The evolution side is correct, but they cannot present their case worth a damn, maybe because they don't consider it worth their while or they consider it a moot point. The ID side ends up seeming more reasonable because they're willing to "consider alternative theories" while the scientists are "close-minded."

I really wish scientists would understand the value of good PR, and find spokespeople who are charismatic and engaging, instead of these dumbshits who get annoyed in a public debate and end up looking like assholes. The ID side, and the Discovery Institute in particular, have EXCELLENT PR going for them, which I think is one of the reasons why people listen to them.

[Ariphaos]

One of his main points last time around was that we've never observed or have evidence for new information been created in DNA. Essentially, he was saying that mutations never cause new information, and that the only difference from one generation to the next is a 're-shuffling' of current information in the DNA.

Some virii, when they enfect a host, will attach to the host's DNA. These strands remain, often getting deactivated, but they are indeed new information and can turn into useful genes, usually (IIRC) as a form of innoculation against more virii.

Sometimes a gene will duplicate itself within a chromosome, making the chromosome larger and doubling the gene. These copies can then differentiate. I'm not positive, but I'm pretty sure this is the basis behind green and red vision - there was only one (probably red) in the past, and eventually it got duplicated, hung around until one of them became green, and that was massively advantagious.

Beyond that, some mutations cause full-chromosome duplication. The most well-known example of this is Down's Syndrome, or Gene 21 trisomy. It happens a lot more often in plants, with less drastic results, though it's still not necessarily a good thing.

[Superboy]

Thanks guys, that's just the kind of stuff I'm looking for. I love the sand castle analogy, that should work well with the primarily high school aged audience.

The book analogy that akhlut used is actually a lot like the analogy the physics teacher used the first time (to the opposite effect, of course). He said that we can write many different books with our alphabet by rearranging the letters, but we never add any new letters, just like no new genetic information is added, just rearranged. At the time, I explained that the analogy doesn't hold up, but I didn't do a very good job of explaining it easily and understandably, so I'm fairly sure he'll bring it up again.

In the link Yogi provided, it mentions this: "increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)". Does anyone have a link with further information on this? It sounds like the perfect example, but I'm not familiar with it at all.

I don't have as much time to prepare, the "debate" is to be held late tomorrow afternoon.

[Ariphaos]

The book analogy that akhlut used is actually a lot like the analogy the physics teacher used the first time (to the opposite effect, of course). He said that we can write many different books with our alphabet by rearranging the letters, but we never add any new letters, just like no new genetic information is added, just rearranged. At the time, I explained that the analogy doesn't hold up, but I didn't do a very good job of explaining it easily and understandably, so I'm fairly sure he'll bring it up again.

To throw this back at him, just say that it's more like a three-ring binder next to a xerox machine with tons of spare paper. In the course of xeroxing, a page may turned upside down, letters may get blotched, and so on. But, just like any flawed copying procedure, there are many cases where a page may get duplicated twice.

Also, sometimes people may sneak in their own pages (viruses), or forget to hand the new book off when they should (wholesale chromosome duplication).

The first two happen on a fairly regular basis in humans, even in a single body over the course of a lifetime.

[wilfulton]

Ya know, you might consider asking this dolt why he insists on debating you. As said earlier, focus on the offense, and don't answer his questions, he's supposed to be the expert, make HIM answer YOURS.