![Some more long overdue questions. Thanks for being patient!
1. To save everyone the trouble of fixing the link, here’s the article. It’s laughably bad scholarship, and to fully pick it apart would take hours - I only made it through the first page before I had to stop. The person you’re debating is simply wrong. There are no creationists doing research on biology right now. Creationists don’t carry out experiments in the lab; instead, they offer limp-wristed and ignorant criticisms of evolution from behind a desk. It’s a lazy tactic, and it relies on casting doubt on a tiny sliver of evolutionary theory and then allowing the reader to doubt the rest of the theory. The problem is, no single misleading article on giraffes can undo every biological discovery of the past 150 years. And an article casting doubt on the evolution of giraffes does not count as positive evidence for creationism.
My advice for your debate is to refuse to take the bait. Don’t quibble over giraffes - ask your creationist friend to explain the age of the Earth, biogeography, atavisms, junk DNA, vestigial traits, the fossil record, or any of the other troves of evidence for evolution.
2. Thanks for the compliment! You can submit your link the same way the above questioner did, or you can try putting brackets around every period in the link - like this [.]
3. I’m not sure I’d describe it as confusion, but I’m most awed by DNA and how programmed self-replication of that single molecule is responsible for just about everything we see on the planet today, and everything that has existed for billions of years. That just blows my mind.
4. I really appreciate your story, and also your compliment. Thanks!
5. Referring to this post. I don’t profess to know everything, so I appreciate it when my readers correct me (even if I don’t get around to posting their comments for a few weeks!), So, thanks drueisms.](http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lwyg34Rd3Y1qgfmcuo1_500.png)
Some more long overdue questions. Thanks for being patient!
1. To save everyone the trouble of fixing the link, here’s the article. It’s laughably bad scholarship, and to fully pick it apart would take hours - I only made it through the first page before I had to stop. The person you’re debating is simply wrong. There are no creationists doing research on biology right now. Creationists don’t carry out experiments in the lab; instead, they offer limp-wristed and ignorant criticisms of evolution from behind a desk. It’s a lazy tactic, and it relies on casting doubt on a tiny sliver of evolutionary theory and then allowing the reader to doubt the rest of the theory. The problem is, no single misleading article on giraffes can undo every biological discovery of the past 150 years. And an article casting doubt on the evolution of giraffes does not count as positive evidence for creationism.
My advice for your debate is to refuse to take the bait. Don’t quibble over giraffes - ask your creationist friend to explain the age of the Earth, biogeography, atavisms, junk DNA, vestigial traits, the fossil record, or any of the other troves of evidence for evolution.
2. Thanks for the compliment! You can submit your link the same way the above questioner did, or you can try putting brackets around every period in the link - like this [.]
3. I’m not sure I’d describe it as confusion, but I’m most awed by DNA and how programmed self-replication of that single molecule is responsible for just about everything we see on the planet today, and everything that has existed for billions of years. That just blows my mind.
4. I really appreciate your story, and also your compliment. Thanks!
5. Referring to this post. I don’t profess to know everything, so I appreciate it when my readers correct me (even if I don’t get around to posting their comments for a few weeks!), So, thanks drueisms.
