NephilimFree said in his video “The atheists have one thing half-right” the following on genetic modification:
We can’t take the genetics of two different kinds like, ape and human, and mix them together. Or a reptile and human, or an insect and a human, and mix them together and create a viable living creature. According to modern biology, that’s impossible.
But we can mix the genetics of different ‘kinds’ together and create viable living creatures. The most well known examples are plants that have been genetically modified to express certain characteristics they normally don’t have.
To just list the main agricultural crops that are being used in the United States, with the percentage of those crops that are genetic modified strains (mostly modified with genes from bacteria):
- Soybeans, 93%
- Corn, 86%
- Canola, 93%
- Hawaiian papaya, 80%
- Cotton, for cottonseed oil, 93%
And this are just the plants. Currently companies are testing animals that are genetically modified for producing medicine. Or, in the case of a modified salmon that is being tested by AquaBounty, grow faster.
This destroys Nephs argument that we cannot produce viable genetically modified crops or animals. Although currently animals haven’t really been modified and used for food production as there are public opinion and legislative hurdles they need to take before they can do this. he salmon I mentioned is the big test case.
Also the crops I mentioned represent a large portion of the average U.S citizens breakfast, lunch and dinner that’s based on, or derived from, plants genetically modified with genes from bacteria (there was even a tomato with a fish gene). So, how can he explain this in the context of the argument he presented that we cannot modify genes and produce a viable life form?
The following day I had the opportunity to ask NephilimFree this question on his BlogTalkRadioShow:
What happened when I asked him how he explains that in light of all the genetic modification we are currently doing and even are using to produce food he said the following:
Yeah well I said that man doesn’t have the technology to create a brand new life form from scratch. And we don’t have the technology to take the DNA from one creature and another and create a new one. And what I meant with that was create a new creature with a new morphology, I don’t mean taking a gene from one creature and putting it in the DNA of another viable, already viable, organism. I’m talking about mixing, taking two kinds of creatures, and creating a new kind from them. We don’t have that technology. … It would seem rational that’s what I meant.
In short he redefined his original argument that he meant the creation of an entire new species. Which was not part of his original statement. So in essence moving the goalpost on me when he realized he was in trouble.
But I had fun calling him on his show and asking him questions. I’ll be doing this more often.