Strange Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 Speaking Point #1: Irreducible Complexity is the theory It isn't a theory. It is an absurd claim. Additionally, systems such as the cardiovascular system or the central nervous system seem too complex to have evolved from a single cell. And yet there are organisms that show every level of complexity from nothing to the most complex. For example, the eye is sometimes taken as an example of "Irreducible Complexity" but there are organisms with a just a light sensitive patch of skin right through animals with every type of eye imaginable. Ditto nervous systems and spinal chords. Specifically, it argues that if you take a part away from an organism and it stops functioning (analogous to taking the engine out of a car) then it must be irreducibly complex and cannot have evolved. Right. Because the first car ever made had a V8 engine with electronic fuel injection and GPS navigation. It is one of the main arguments of the “ Intelligent Design” movement. Sad, isn't it. Thus, it is hard to believe that every time there was an “evolutionary pressure”, the resulting evolution effect was positive and we gained rather than losing. Hard to believe because it isn't true. ccording to Scientific American, “living things have fantastically intricate features—at the anatomical, cellular and molecular level— that could not function if they were any less complex or sophisticated. The only prudent conclusion is that they are the products of intelligent design, not evolution.” I assume this is taken out of context (or is simply a lie). See, take the DNA of a fish for example. Somewhere in there is a piece that says “I’m a fish”. No there isn't. It is the entire genome that defines that. No matter what, under natural circumstances, that piece will always be there. Or it might change over generations. So how is it that we could evolve with different DNA without external influence? Random mutation and selection. If that is in fact true, the entire theory of evolution becomes less and less tangible seeing as there is proof of Intelligent Design from an outside creator. And if it isn't true(*) then the entire argument falls apart. (*) It isn't. While this is mainly a Biology debate Then maybe you should learn some biology or you will be laughed out of the class.
iNow Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 Those other models WERE allowed to be debated. They've just failed. In much the same way we don't accept the stork theory of childbirth, we don't accept creationism and intelligent design. It fails to account for the reality around us and is based more on faith than fact. 1
Sensei Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 oh and for those wondering, my job was to only focus on Irreducible Complexity, not a whole argument against Evolution. See computers. The main data storage is bit, 0 or 1. Take 8 bits, and you can arrange them to 256 combinations. Take 4.5 billions of bytes and you can arrange them to the all Hollywood and worldwide movies ever created and stored on DVD, all software programs stored on 1 DVD, all games stored on 1 DVD.. etc. etc.
andrewcellini Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 (edited) How can you demonstrate evolution? Is there a DIY Evolution Lab Kit you can buy? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2430337/ evolution of aerobic citrate metabolism in an experimental population of e coli. the e coli did not have the capacity for conjugation. i don't know of DIY kits, but i do know if you are interested you can always go to school for something like this. there are numerous other papers that you can probably find on google scholar. Edited January 7, 2015 by andrewcellini
overtone Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 Then why not explain to me where I am wrong? You are wrong everywhere, about everything you posted there. What are we supposed to do, write a book? Also do realize, this is a debate by about 10 tenth graders. I'm not sure what you were expecting.. I'm expecting you to recognize that as a tenth grader who knows nothing of biology or evolutionary theory or even ordinary physical reality, trying to debate fringe theories in these matters is a waste of your time. I'm expecting a little basic recognition of the existence of expertise and information and careful, sound reasoning by honest people who have spent their lives studying these matters. And I'm expecting a serious, guilty, humble, and public apology from whoever has so miserably failed their responsibilities as a teacher - and I don't care what class this is: that deceptive quote from Scientific American is an ugly thing to see from a student.
techtalknow Posted January 7, 2015 Author Posted January 7, 2015 It isn't a theory. It is an absurd claim. And yet there are organisms that show every level of complexity from nothing to the most complex. For example, the eye is sometimes taken as an example of "Irreducible Complexity" but there are organisms with a just a light sensitive patch of skin right through animals with every type of eye imaginable. Ditto nervous systems and spinal chords. Right. Because the first car ever made had a V8 engine with electronic fuel injection and GPS navigation. Sad, isn't it. Hard to believe because it isn't true. I assume this is taken out of context (or is simply a lie). No there isn't. It is the entire genome that defines that. Or it might change over generations. Random mutation and selection. And if it isn't true(*) then the entire argument falls apart. (*) It isn't. Then maybe you should learn some biology or you will be laughed out of the class. ^That last comment was rude and uncalled for. I hoped your mama taught you better than that, and I'm scared to know what YOU evolved from. Those other models WERE allowed to be debated. They've just failed. In much the same way we don't accept the stork theory of childbirth, we don't accept creationism and intelligent design. It fails to account for the reality around us and is based more on faith than fact. How is it though that fact has previously been proven wrong? See computers. The main data storage is bit, 0 or 1. Take 8 bits, and you can arrange them to 256 combinations. Take 4.5 billions of bytes and you can arrange them to the all Hollywood and worldwide movies ever created and stored on DVD, all software programs stored on 1 DVD, all games stored on 1 DVD.. etc. etc. And what is this relevant to? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2430337/ evolution of aerobic citrate metabolism in an experimental population of e coli. i don't know of DIY kits, but i do know if you are interested you can go to school to be able to participate in research like this. Sadly I don't have the proximity to nor the financial means to participate in a research project. I asked Santa, tho You are wrong everywhere, about everything you posted there. What are we supposed to do, write a book? I'm expecting you to recognize that as a tenth grader who knows nothing of biology or evolutionary theory or even ordinary physical reality, trying to debate fringe theories in these matters is a waste of your time. I'm expecting a little basic recognition of the existence of expertise and information and careful, sound reasoning by honest people who have spent their lives studying these matters. And I'm expecting a serious, guilty, humble, and public apology from whoever has so miserably failed their responsibilities as a teacher - and I don't care what class this is: that deceptive quote from Scientific American is an ugly thing to see from a student. Overtone you should watch yourself. Just because you don't believe in Irreducible Complexity doesn't give you the right to bash those who teach and learn it. If you're expecting an apology from my teacher, you'll have to go get it yourself as he owes you nothing. You've taken this too far from the simple question of asking for feedback, not unproductive insults. You should seriously go calm down because at this point you've stopped being helpful and started being a pain.
Strange Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 ALSO, Why is it that evolutionists are unwilling to allow for competing models, i.e., creation or even intelligent design? Because they are not scientific models; in other words they are not evidence based and they do not make testable predictions that would allow them to be falsified. The hypothesis of evolution changes every year; if one theory is said to be fact, but then a year later is shown to be wrong, then how can it be fact in the first place? A true fact is something that never changes, am I right? You need to learn a little bit about scientific terminology even if your job is to argue against the science. In fact, especially if your job is to argue against the science. A hypothesis is a provisional idea, based on some evidence. It is used to make some quantitative, testable predictions. These are tested by experiment or observation. If a hypothesis is not shown to be wrong by a large number of tests, it may be accepted as a theory. A theory is still provisional though. A theory can always be overturned or modified by new evidence. So a theory is never a "true fact". The hypothesis of evolution changes every year; So that would be the theory of evolution. Because it is supported by mountains of evidence. And it has changed over the years because we have learnt more by looking at the evidence. That is what science does.
techtalknow Posted January 7, 2015 Author Posted January 7, 2015 Because they are not scientific models; in other words they are not evidence based and they do not make testable predictions that would allow them to be falsified. You need to learn a little bit about scientific terminology even if your job is to argue against the science. In fact, especially if your job is to argue against the science. A hypothesis is a provisional idea, based on some evidence. It is used to make some quantitative, testable predictions. These are tested by experiment or observation. If a hypothesis is not shown to be wrong by a large number of tests, it may be accepted as a theory. A theory is still provisional though. A theory can always be overturned or modified by new evidence. So a theory is never a "true fact". So that would be the theory of evolution. Because it is supported by mountains of evidence. And it has changed over the years because we have learnt more by looking at the evidence. That is what science does. And yet it's still a theory. Apparently well supported, but still a theory.
andrewcellini Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 Overtone you should watch yourself. Just because you don't believe in Irreducible Complexity doesn't give you the right to bash those who teach and learn it. If you're expecting an apology from my teacher, you'll have to go get it yourself as he owes you nothing. that's exactly it; irreducible complexity is a belief. it sounds pretty scientific too. it's a shame that it is a falsified concept held by those who also believe that a god made one man and one woman on the 5th day and who want to force these beliefs upon you rather than empirical evidence.
iNow Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 And yet it's still a theory. Apparently well supported, but still a theory.
Strange Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 I was asking for some constructive criticism, not a fight to tear my 10th grade work apart. FFS. Constructive criticism: ask to be transferred to the side arguing for science instead of against it. 10th grade is what, 15? If so, I would expect better in knowledge of biology, critical thinking and ability to present ideas.
techtalknow Posted January 7, 2015 Author Posted January 7, 2015 that's exactly it; irreducible complexity is a belief. it sounds pretty scientific too. it's a shame that it is a falsified concept held by those who also believe that a god made one man and one woman on the 5th day and who want to force these beliefs upon you rather than empirical evidence. It's a shame you don't have the capacity for nor the faith to believe in things that aren't tangible to the human. Again, you're not only belittling the work I put in, you're going on the offensive against creationism. The debate is pro/anti evolution, not evolution vs creationism.
Strange Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 And yet it's still a theory. Apparently well supported, but still a theory. Exactly. A theory is as good as it gets in science. But note that the theory explains how evolution occurs. That evolution occurs is an easily observable fact (look at domesticated plants or dog breeding, for example.)
iNow Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 There is no debate. There are people who accept reality and those who dismiss it in favor of their religious beliefs. 1
andrewcellini Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 (edited) It's a shame you don't have the capacity for nor the faith to believe in things that aren't tangible to the human. Again, you're not only belittling the work I put in, you're going on the offensive against creationism. The debate is pro/anti evolution, not evolution vs creationism. you are arguing, in your first post, that an intelligent designer makes more sense than evolution so of course i will go on the offensive against this idea. there is simply no evidence for it. by introducing this concept of an intelligent designer you are, in essence, bring creationism/ID to the table in your argument. it is your "counter argument" to evolution. and it holds no water in reality.why have faith in this idea when it simply means that you accept it without a base? it seems like an unstable way to look at the world. evolution, contrary to what you believe, is built upon facts. Edited January 7, 2015 by andrewcellini
Strange Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 How can you demonstrate evolution? Is there a DIY Evolution Lab Kit you can buy? You can demonstrate evolution in all sorts of ways by looking at populations over multiple generations. Fruit flies are often used because many generations can be observed in a short time. And yes, there are many lab kits you can buy to look at various aspects. 1
techtalknow Posted January 7, 2015 Author Posted January 7, 2015 Exactly. A theory is as good as it gets in science. But note that the theory explains how evolution occurs. That evolution occurs is an easily observable fact (look at domesticated plants or dog breeding, for example.) The main topic here is Human Evolution, to be specific. Plants and doges have nothing to do with the HUMAN aspect. There is no debate. There are people who accept reality and those who dismiss it in favor of their religious beliefs. There is a debate. There are people who accept YOUR illusion of reality and there are people who accept MINE. I'd rather I got constructive, helpful feedback on my OG post instead of having my beliefs insulted and belittled. -2
overtone Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 Just because you don't believe in Irreducible Complexity doesn't give you the right to bash those who teach and learn it. Having an example of their irresponsibility and poor ethics and incompetent reasoning in front of me does, however. Nobody teaches and learns Irreducible Complexity, btw, except maybe in philosophy class as example of bad logic or in history as an error of the early days of biological research. As a modern scientific theory it does not exist. If you're expecting an apology from my teacher, you'll have to go get it yourself as he owes you nothing. You get him on this forum, and I'll tear him a new asshole. He has no business doing this to you and your fellow classmates, teaching you to post lies and and bad arguments and parade your ignorance in front of people who know better.
John Cuthber Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 ugh from the beginning i felt like this would escalate. I was asking for some constructive criticism, not a fight to tear my 10th grade work apart. FFS. Would you like us to point out the errors in each of the talking point you raise so that you are forewarned of the arguments you should face when you debate this?
techtalknow Posted January 7, 2015 Author Posted January 7, 2015 Having an example of their irresponsibility and poor ethics and incompetent reasoning in front of me does, however. Nobody teaches and learns Irreducible Complexity, btw, except maybe in philosophy class as example of bad logic or in history as an error of the early days of biological research. As a modern scientific theory it does not exist. You get him on this forum, and I'll tear him a new asshole. He has no business doing this to you and your fellow classmates, teaching you to post lies and and bad arguments and parade your ignorance in front of people who know better. Are you challenging him to a personal debate?
John Cuthber Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 If he thinks the "talking points" you have quoted are a valid debate then it's going to be a short contest. None of them is valid. He should know that.
overtone Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 Why is stuff I did not post appearing under my name?
Strange Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 ^That last comment was rude and uncalled for. I hoped your mama taught you better than that, and I'm scared to know what YOU evolved from. It wasn't rude. I am genuinely concerned for you. If you stand up in a biology class and spout this stuff, I would imagine that the other students, and probably the teacher, will be laughing and throwing things at you.
techtalknow Posted January 7, 2015 Author Posted January 7, 2015 It wasn't rude. I am genuinely concerned for you. If you stand up in a biology class and spout this stuff, I would imagine that the other students, and probably the teacher, will be laughing and throwing things at you. If they do decide to throw things at me, I'll throw them back a hell of a lot harder, and I'll make sure you're the first person to know,
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now