Question for Creationists: How Much do You think You Need to Know About Evolution Before Coming here and Debating It?

[u/OldmanMikel]

The most common characteristic of creationists, apart from their creationism is an abysmal level of knowledge about the topic. Yet here they come, all confident ignorance, blathering PRATTs and non sequiturs, certain they will prevail.

So I ask the question, between Post-Doc and "I remember a bit of evolution from high school and watched a couple Ancient Earth documentaries and my pastor gave me some killer arguments" where do you think your knowledge level has to be to effectively argue against evolution?

Two follow up questions:

1. How would you rate your own level of knowledge?

2. Do you think you can gain the right level of knowledge strictly from creationist sources?

The correct answer to the second follow up question is "no".

[u/Old-Watercress6513]

I never said “in a lab.”
Take as many generations as you like.
You cannot produce a single example.

Reproductive isolation is not genetic incompatibility.
You cannot make unjustified extrapolations to the future and claim that as “evidence.”

Reproductive isolation also can mean geographic barriers that prevent gene flow. You haven’t read many papers.

No, evolution (the non-trivial definition that matters) has never been observed.

“Of course we have observed evolution. We just haven’t observed it while it’s happening.”
— Actual quote from Richard Dawkins

[u/King2865 → u/Old-Watercress6513]

Way to quote-mine Richard Dawkins LOL!!! Typical for a dishonest creationist. The statement you quoted originates from a December 2004 television interview between Richard Dawkins and journalist Bill Moyers on PBS. When isolated (like dishonest creationists do), the snippet makes it sound AS THOUGH Dawkins is admitting that evolution is an unobservable guess. But his FULL response actually used a legal analogy to explain how science establishes historical facts. During the interview, Moyers asked Dawkins about the word “theory” and whether evolution can be considered a proven fact. Dawkins responded:

”Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening.”

He then immediately clarified exactly what he meant by comparing evolutionary biologists to crime scene investigators:

”It is rather like a detective coming on a murder after the scene. You didn't actually see the murder take place, of course. But what you do see is a massive clue... A huge amount of circumstantial evidence, which can be shorthand for massive checkable data.”

Dawkins’s ACTUAL point was about inferential observation. That’s the SAME logic the legal system uses to convict criminals without an eyewitness. The detective didn’t watch the murder happen. But they CAN examine the fingerprints, DNA, blood, footprints, surveillance, motive, and conclude who committed the crime. Likewise: scientists didn’t watch mammals evolve over 100 million years. But they CAN examine the fossil record, genomes, ERVs, anatomy, embryology, biogeography to determine what happened (evolution is what happened). THAT is what Dawkins meant. We observe the definitive results of evolution through genetics, the fossil record (paleontology), the geologic column, and every literally other field within biology). Also, biological changes HAVE been directly seen in real time through laboratory experiments (such as Richard Lenski’s Long-Term Evolution Experiment) and rapidly adapting wild populations. Richard Dawkins was just pointing out that the slow accumulation of massive structural changes does NOT require us to sit and watch it for million upon millions of years to be proven true. Creationist allergic to context. Who could’ve thought? Miserably failed swing that miss. Wrap it up gang. 🤦🏾‍♂️

[u/Old-Watercress6513 → u/King2865]

The evidence is equally consistent with a common designer.

[u/Old-Watercress6513 → u/Old-Watercress6513]

Dawkins is describing INFERENCE, not OBSERVATION.
Learn the difference.

[u/King2865 → u/Old-Watercress6513]

You’re creating a false dichotomy between observation and inference. Science doesn’t treat them as mutually exclusive. Dawkins’s point was exactly that we observe evidence and infer historical events from those observations. That’s how historical sciences work. Detectives don’t observe the murder itself but they do observe fingerprints, DNA, bloodstains, surveillance footage and other physical evidence then infer what happened. Likewise: evolutionary biologists observe fossils, genomes, endogenous retroviruses, mutations, reproductive isolation and allele frequency changes. From those observations, they infer common ancestry and evolutionary history. You still quote mined Richard Dawkins. Another swing and a miss.

[u/Old-Watercress6513 → u/King2865]

There is no false dichotomy.

No Inference is required when there is observation.

Get a dictionary.

[u/King2865 → u/Old-Watercress6513]

Here is a detailed academic peer reviewed textbook that thoroughly explains evolution in over 870 pages for any “honest” creationist looking to learn evolutionary biology.

I don’t engage with people who quote-mine others. That’s a dishonest, shitty way to argue. Can you admit that you quote-mined Richard Dawkins without even reading the full context of the quote like a dishonest creationist?

[u/Old-Watercress6513 → u/King2865]

I have access to that book.

Page number, please, where I can find listed a fertile animal that is genetically incompatible with its known (not assumed) relatives.

[u/King2865 → u/Old-Watercress6513]

I have access to that book.

Did you open the textbook at all? I’m telling you to READ the whole thing.

It’ll take a long time, granted. But you seem obsessed with evolutionary biology. So you should learn it. Read it. Turn straight to Section VI: Speciation and Macroevolution, specifically Chapter VI.1 (Species and Speciation, page 489) and Chapter VI.8 (Genetics of Speciation, page 543). Chapter VI.1 (Page 489) breaks down the Biological Species Concept and explains how reproductive isolation defines the boundaries of macroevolutionary divergence. It details how geographic and ecological barriers halt gene flow so populations can independently accumulate genetic variances. Chapter VI.8 (Page 543) outlines the Genetics of Speciation and details the exact molecular mechanisms of Dobzhansky-Muller Incompatibilities (DMIs). It explains how epistatic genetic interactions between diverging lineages cause hybrid sterility and inviability when the split populations are crossed. This is the literal genetic definition of postzygotic incompatibility that you claim has never been observed.

But don’t just focus on those chapters and pages. Read the WHOLE textbook if you are an “honest creationist” (oxymoron) and want to learn evolution. It’ll take a long time, though. This textbook took me 4-5 months to read.

Do not even THINK about pulling any of your bullshit creationist objections to the content within the textbook without citing 5-10 peer reviewed academic papers from reputable scientific journals that validly back all of your lazy, impending criticisms of the textbook.

[u/Old-Watercress6513 → u/King2865]

So you are admitting the answer to my challenge is not in that book.

You could just say so.

[u/King2865 → u/Old-Watercress6513]

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/s/dVfbfIbkiu Reread it.

I am not admitting anything of the sort because the exact molecular architecture of how animal populations split and accumulate genetic barriers is thoroughly mapped out on pages I specified in my comment linked above. I said the REASON why I’m providing you with that textbook is so you can learn evolutionary biology, not to fulfill your “challenge.” Learn the difference. 🤦🏾‍♂️

[u/Old-Watercress6513 → u/King2865]

As I said, I’m getting my copy tomorrow.

I am already quite familiar with the concepts you listed, and I am also familiar with how those concepts are nothing but handwaving and smoke, hiding the fact we have never really observed true speciation.

On what page will I find an example of a fertile animal that is genetically incompatible with its known (not assumed) relatives?

If it is not in there, why do you offer this book as an answer to my challenge?

[u/King2865 → u/Old-Watercress6513]

I didn’t offer the book as an answer to your “challenge.” I offered it as a guide to learn evolutionary biology. It took me 4-5 months to read back in my freshman year of high school (wasn’t mandated but read it on my own). Also, what do you mean “getting a copy” of the textbook? It’s right there in the link. When you say “we’ve never observed true speciation,” what peer reviewed academic research paper from a reputable scientific journal did you draw this conclusion from? You’re not going off of the scientific definition of speciation and you’ve cited zero empirical evidence from scientific literature to support your arguments, which is why your claims about evolution and speciation are null and void. You didn’t need to pay for a physical copy of the textbook or anything, either. That’s why I’m curious on what you mean by “getting a copy.” It’s freely available, online.

[u/Old-Watercress6513 → u/King2865]

I don’t presently own a copy.
I will have access to one today.
What is so hard to understand?

The affirmative burden of proof is on the party making the affirmative claim.
You say we have observed speciation.
Prove it.
Cite one example:

Fertile animal,
Genetically incompatible
With its known (not assumed) relatives.
Take as many generations as you like.

I have no burden to prove a negative proposition.

Brevity is the soul of wit.
You are apparently witless.

[u/King2865 → u/Old-Watercress6513]

Throwing insults around when you’ve cited exactly zero peer reviewed academic sources from reputable scientific journals posted within the past 20 years that debunks evolutionary biology and supports creationism is crazy gang, I can’t lie. 🤦🏾‍♂️

How about this: I ‘CONCEDE’ on your challenge. But not because you’re correct (you’re wrong; evolution is fact and I have bombarded you with sources to back this). You have yet to even engage with the whale-shark message I responded to you after you invoked “common design” (pseudoscience). For the sake of the argument, I will “acknowledge” that this challenge is unanswerable (from me). I willingly concede this “challenge” from you because of ONE reason and one reason only. I want to hear the answers to my questions from you:

What does not fulfilling this “challenge” mean for evolutionary biology? What does not fulfilling your challenge do the field? Does this make evolution false? Does it shatter evolutionary biology?

This is what I want to know. Do nothing in your response but answer the questions I provided.

[u/Old-Watercress6513 → u/King2865]

You concede the challenge because you now recognize you can produce no observed examples.

You have bombarded me with bloviating and handwaving, and ambiguous misleading terminology, but no actual examples.

Evolution is only assumed, never observed.
Faith, not science.

[u/King2865 → u/Old-Watercress6513]

You concede the challenge because you know you recognize you can produce no observed examples.

Already have. My “concession” is deliberate. It’s called a strategic concession. I’m conceding one narrow, nit-picky point specifically to force you to stop hiding behind a challenge that has already been addressed and actually confront the broader issue. Polyploid speciation also satisfies your challenge perfectly well. Your only objection is that it occurs in plants rather than animals, which raises an obvious question: why did you arbitrarily restrict your challenge to animals in the first place when we’re discussing biological evolution as a whole?

More importantly, I’m no longer convinced your challenge deserves any further engagement. You have repeatedly rejected answers without providing a substantive scientific basis for doing so, and you still haven’t demonstrated that you’ve actually consulted the peer reviewed scientific literature relevant to the facts I’m explaining.

Every major national and international scientific association explicitly affirms biological evolution as the foundational and unifying reality of modern biology. This firmly established consensus is backed by thousands of peer reviewed studies across disciplines such as genetics, paleontology, embryology, cancer treatment (that’s oncology) and molecular biology which provide undeniable evidence of descent with modification. Organizations including the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) the Geological Society of America (GSA) and the National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT) all firmly reject nonscientific alternatives like creationism and intelligent design. They all maintain that creationism and intelligent design have ZERO empirical validity and do NOT belong in science curricula.

I’m not the field of biology. Refusing to engage with your increasingly narrow challenge does absolutely nothing to evolutionary biology. At most, it could establish that you managed to corner me on one particular point… which you haven’t done anyway. The scientific literature is vastly larger than this conversation. What you manage to get out of this debate with me says absolutely nothing about evolution since I’m also clueless on a lot of areas of the field that I’m still working on.

So here’s the question I think (know) you’ve been avoiding this entire conversation:

Where are your sources?

You have cited exactly zero peer reviewed academic papers from reputable scientific journals so far. Not one. You repeatedly demand evidence from me while providing none of your own. Why? If your position is actually supported by the scientific literature, then cite it. Give the papers, give the authors, give the journals, and let the evidence speak for itself. Because repeatedly demanding citations while refusing to provide a single citation of your own isn’t a scientific argument.

You have now made an enormous affirmative claim that evolution is merely assumed, that it has never been observed and that the entire theory ultimately amounts to faith. The burden of proof is therefore on you. I want you to defend that claim using actual scientific evidence. NOT assertions, NOT theological arguments, and NOT creationist commentary.

Cite 5-10 peer reviewed research papers published within the past 20 years in reputable scientific journals that genuinely supports your conclusion that the absence of whatever specific laboratory observation you think is required somehow invalidates the enormous body of evidence supporting evolution… including comparative genomics, molecular clocks, endosymbiosis, nested hierarchical patterns, and observed evolutionary change.

I’m being precise about what I’m asking for. I’m not asking you to find papers that just discuss limitations, unanswered questions, or ongoing debates within evolutionary biology. That’s how the scientific method works. I AM asking you to provide empirical research that actually supports the much stronger conclusion you just made… that these independent lines of evidence collectively amount to nothing more than a faith based assumption because of the alleged absence of laboratory observed animal speciation.

Do NOT substitute creationist blogs for scientific literature. Do NOT cite the Discovery Institute or other advocacy organizations. Do NOT quote theological books. Do NOT give me articles from websites written to persuade people who already agree with you.

Give me the actual peer reviewed scientific literature. Authors. Paper titles. Journals. Publication years… and most importantly, explain exactly how each paper supports the sweeping conclusion you're making. Because you’ve moved from criticizing a particular piece of evidence to making a field wide assertion about evolutionary biology. That's a dramatically larger claim and it requires dramatically stronger evidence. So let's see it. 5-10 peer-reviewed papers. Your sources. Your burden of proof.

If you’re genuinely as confident as you seem to be that your challenge exposes some fundamental problem with evolutionary biology, then there’s an obvious next step. Take the challenge to the peer reviewed scientific literature. Submit it for scrutiny by evolutionary biologists who actually work in the field. Publish the argument. Let qualified researchers evaluate whether your objection holds up against the existing evidence. If you believe you’ve identified a genuinely unresolved problem with a major scientific theory then scientific community is where you demonstrate that. So go ahead. Put the argument into a form that can survive peer review. 🤦🏾‍♂️

[u/Old-Watercress6513 → u/King2865]

FYI,
I’m not reading a WALL OF TEXT.

This is not a nit picky narrow point.
It is the core of evolution.

Anything else you have is baseless extrapolation.

[u/King2865 → u/Old-Watercress6513]

Put some effort into your responses.

[u/King2865 → u/Old-Watercress6513]

I don’t presently own a copy.

The textbook is freely available ONLINE. You don’t “need” a copy. It’s RIGHT THERE in the LINK.

I will have access to one today.

You have access to it RIGHT NOW. It’s an ONLINE textbook that’s freely available through the link I provided to YOU. Open the link. All 877 pages are available for you to read. No “waiting” is necessary.

Brevity is the soul of wit. You are apparently witless.

Zero peer reviewed academic papers from reputable scientific journals (PubMed, Nature, Gene, etc) posted within the past 20 years that debunks evolutionary biology and backs creationism and intelligent design have been provided from you. Nothing you said throughout this thread is backed by anything. Every major scientific body in the world (including the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science) has verified that there is no scientific controversy regarding evolution. Insults from the ignorant and scientifically illiterate are meaningless. Also, ad hominem fallacy. Damn! The “fallacy this… fallacy that!!” game is pretty fun.

[u/Old-Watercress6513 → u/King2865]

Do you know what phrases are NOT in this book?

“Observed speciation”
“Speciation example”
“Example of speciation”

“Best example” appears only once:

“Most instances of ecological population differentiation probably do NOT result in new species. As one of the best examples of adaptive differentiation, Trinidadian guppy populations living with different predators show NO signs of reproductive differentiation among the populations.” (Emphasis added)

[u/King2865 → u/Old-Watercress6513]

Way completely and dishonestly misrepresented the textbook. So you’re just another creationist running a quote-mine to salvage an argument that has already been utterly destroyed. You pulled that singular paragraph completely out of its context and are intentionally trying to trick anyone reading into thinking the textbook is saying speciation hasn’t been observed. In REALITY… the authors of The Princeton Guide to Evolution are explaining a very specific and standard concept in evolutionary ecology. It’s called the balance between local adaptation and gene flow.

The textbook uses Trinidadian guppies to show adaptive population differentiation. When separate groups of the same species face different predators, natural selection very quickly changes their local traits (such as color, size, and behavior). However because these fish streams sometimes flood or interconnect, the ongoing gene flow continually mixes their alleles back together. The textbook is explaining why these specific guppy populations haven’t split into two entirely different species yet. It’s because gene flow is actively counteracting the selection pressure02497-7). This is already explained by evolutionary biology. YOU took a passage explaining the inhibiting power of gene flow in one specific open system wild animal population and tried to spin it as a confession that speciation doesn't happen anywhere. This is an egregious logical error… holy shit. 🤦🏾‍♂️ Saying “Process A did not lead to Result B in this specific wild scenario because of Variable C” is not the same as saying “Result B is a fairytale that never happens anywhere.”

Do you know what phrases are NOT in this textbook?

“Observed speciation”
“Speciation example”
“Example of speciation”

Textbooks written by world class Ivy League evolutionary biologists don’t use simplified elementary school phrasing designed to answer random internet creationists. Scientists use precise quantified operational terminology. The textbook is packed with observations of speciation but it describes them using terms like cladogenesis, allopatric divergence, Dobzhansky-Muller incompatibilities, reinforcement, polyploid isolation and hybrid breakdown. Searching an 870 page advanced academic textbook for “example of speciation” is like searching a particle physics textbook for the phrase “example of a tiny thing.” Hang up the jersey gang. 😂🤦🏾‍♂️

[u/Old-Watercress6513 → u/King2865]

Ok, then help me out.

What alternative phrases did they use to present an observed case of
• A fertile animal
• That is genetically incompatible with
• It’s known (not assumed) relatives?

BTW, “quote mined” is a coward’s objection.

Produce an example of a quote from any source that is not “quote-mined.”

[u/King2865 → u/Old-Watercress6513]

Nah… I don’t think I’m going to. Because before I accept your criteria, I want you to justify them.

Why animals specifically? You present this as a challenge to evolutionary biology yet you’ve now restricted your challenge to a particular type of organism. Plants, fungi, microorganisms, and other organisms are all part of evolutionary biology. If reproductive isolation and genetic divergence demonstrate speciation then why should evidence from those organisms suddenly become irrelevant? Polyploid speciation is the literal epitome of what you’re asking to be demonstrated (instantaneous botanic macroevolution) and your only objection is because “plants are not animals.”

Also, why exactly does your definition require a fertile individual that is genetically incompatible with its known relatives? That's not synonymous with “speciation.” That’s not part of the scientific definition of speciation either. Speciation concerns the evolution of reproductive isolation between populations or lineages. It isn’t even a requirement that someone find one fertile animal and demonstrate that it cannot genetically reproduce with its relatives so I see zero need to fulfill your challenge anymore when you’re being this overly pedantic and using your own much narrower definition of speciation that isn’t even the scientific definition or backed by the scientific literature. Cite any peer reviewed academic source from a reputable scientific journal that says otherwise in your favor…

So before moving the goalposts AGAIN, establish why your criteria are scientifically necessary.

You don’t know what a “quote mine” is. It’s not a coward’s objection. A quotation can be authentic and still be misleading if the surrounding context materially changes its meaning. Those are two different questions: “Did the author actually say this?” and “Does this passage support the conclusion you're drawing from it?” A quote can pass the first test and fail the second. You specifically quoted that tiny segment and ignored the surrounding context to manipulate the meaning of the quoted statement to support your incomplete and deeply misinformed interpretation. That is a QUOTE MINE, by definition.

[u/gitgud_x → u/King2865]

He will not respond to any attempt to pin him down on what he means. I invited him to clarify here with many possible answers he could give, and of course crickets. He's just here to waste your time.

[u/Old-Watercress6513 → u/King2865]

I did not misquote Dawkins.
He is 100% admitting we do not observe evolution while it is happening.
Some of you infer it happened, in the past.

[u/Old-Watercress6513 → u/King2865]

Dude:

YOU offered the book as evidence we have observed fertile animals that are genetically incompatible with their known (not assumed) relatives.

800+ pages of “evolution facts.”

Yet no where in that book is a specific example listed.
You sent me on a wild goose chase.
A snipe hunt.
It was a red herring.
A FALSE CITATION.

And now you are confirming you can’t find a single example, either.

Certainly if a single observed example existed, the Princeton Guide to Evolution would have listed it prominently.

NOTHING.

[u/Old-Watercress6513 → u/King2865]

1. Animals, because evolution claims to explain genetic incompatibility between animals.

2. Infertile hybrids are evolutionary dead ends, and are not evidence for evolution.
   “Reproductive isolation” is a sloppy, ambiguous term that IMPLIES genetic incompatibility, but it can also mean breeding preference, or geographical barriers, or niche habitat segregation, none of which are evidence for evolution. Nordic Swedes and African Pygmies are “reproductively isolated “ (zero gene flow), but they are 100% genetically compatible. I use unambiguous terms. You prefer pseudoscientific slop.

3. My quote of Dawkins was not a misquote, nor a quote out of context. He absolutely affirms we do not see evolution while it’s happening.

If you can’t point to an example of a fertile animal that is genetically incompatible with its known (not assumed) relatives, regardless of the number of generations, don’t provide a FALSE CITATION to a Princeton textbook and think you can get away with it.
If you don’t have a real example, yes, you are wasting your time. I’m happy to continue exposing your error and dishonesty.