Pro/Anti Evolution Debate

[Strange]

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.

 

What Andrew or anyone else believes is irrelevant, we are discussing science.

[techtalknow]

 

What Andrew or anyone else believes is irrelevant, we are discussing science.

And "Discussing science" involves insulting my beliefs? Mhm sure

[Strange]

The main topic here is Human Evolution, to be specific. Plants and doges have nothing to do with the HUMAN aspect.

 

It is all evolution.

 

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.

 

In other words, there are those who accept science and those who prefer their own beliefs over evidence.

 

So you come to a science forum and present your non-scientific beliefs. What feedback do you expect beyond "learn some science".

And "Discussing science" involves insulting my beliefs? Mhm sure

 

As I say, beliefs are irrelevant. I don't care what you believe. Just don't try and pass your beliefs off as equal to science.

[Sensei]

So how is it that we could evolve with different DNA without external influence?

 

There is external influence. Any physicists know it.

There are UV photons, x-rays, gamma rays, alpha decay, beta decay, causing random changes to molecules, if they hit it. Also DNA. Causing mutation. Typically in wrong way. That's what we call cancer. Cell that stopped doing its normal task, and get out of control of organism. Each cancer is unique, because each damage to DNA is unique.

If somebody is radiated by radioactive isotopes/nuclear weapons, significant portion of his cells is changed, and damage is lethal.

But small amount of radiation in small percentage of cases will produce new features.

Especially changes made to mother's cell/spermatozoon.

 

You can culture bacterias in lab. And radiate them by radioactive particles. And observe damages/changes.

 

ps. Not to mention influence of Moon and thunderbolts.

Edited January 7, 2015 by Sensei

[techtalknow]

 

It is all evolution.

 

 

In other words, there are those who accept science and those who prefer their own beliefs over evidence.

 

So you come to a science forum and present your non-scientific beliefs. What feedback do you expect beyond "learn some science".

While I PERSONALLY believe in creationism, my debate is in regards to anti-evolutionism. I'd prefer we kept it to that. Obviously you guys have little tolerance for things you can't understand. Who knows, maybe this conversation has created an evolutionary pressure that could cause you to learn some decency...then again, I don't think you're advanced enough to evolve just sayin

[andrewcellini]

And "Discussing science" involves insulting my beliefs? Mhm sure

your talking points introduce intelligent design as a counter argument to explain what we see. there is no insult when i say "that is not good enough" or "that is false." they are concepts which have either been falsified or are unfalsifiable. i'm sorry that you believe them so dearly that evidence will not erase them.

Edited January 7, 2015 by andrewcellini

[overtone]

Are you challenging him to a personal debate?

I want to know where you got the quote from Scientific American, and whose idea it was to post it here, and what you thought it meant, and where you got that idea.

 

And if the source or the permission or the recommendation was the teacher of your biology class, I want them fired. That level of betrayal of a student is too serious.

Edited January 7, 2015 by overtone

[techtalknow]

your talking points introduce intelligent design as a counter argument to explain what we see. there is no insult when i say "that is not good enough" or "that is false." they are concepts which have either been falsified or are unfalsifiable. i'm sorry that you believe them so dearly that evidence will not erase them.

So you're telling me that my arguments are false. Present me with a rebuttal.

[andrewcellini]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2632098/

 

here's 12 similar populations of ecoli to the one i posted before evolving 2 different traits.

So you're telling me that my arguments are false. Present me with a rebuttal.

there are numerous posts by others on IC

 

i have now posted 2 papers on evolution in bacteria.

 

and you have not presented evidence of an intelligent designer, or any evidence contrary to what has been posted. the onus is on your to demonstrate these claims.

Edited January 7, 2015 by andrewcellini

[Strange]

I want to know where you got the quote from Scientific American.

 

I second that.

 

I assume from the comments so far, that techtalknow just copied it from a creationist website. Either that or it is his own original lie.

[techtalknow]

I want to know where you got the quote from Scientific American, and whose idea it was to post it here, and what you thought it meant, and where you got that idea.

 

And if the source or the permission or the recommendation was the teacher of your biology class, I want them fired. That level of betrayal of a student is too serious.

Apparently you haven't evolved enough to be capable of doing a simple Google Search.

[Strange]

So you're telling me that my arguments are false. Present me with a rebuttal.

 

You are not interested in rebuttals. You have just ignored those that have been presented so far. All you do is repeat the same claims (and then pretend it is an insult to point out that you are wrong).

Apparently you haven't evolved enough to be capable of doing a simple Google Search.

 

And now who is insulting people?

[andrewcellini]

Apparently you haven't evolved enough to be capable of doing a simple Google Search.

this demonstrate your lack of knowledge of evolution. the key to understanding evolution is to not focus so much on individuals but on the gene frequencies of populations.

[Endy0816]

This is the full quote from Scientific American:

 

 

14. Living things have fantastically intricate features--at the anatomical, cellular and molecular levels--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.

This "argument from design" is the backbone of most recent attacks on evolution, but it is also one of the oldest. In 1802 theologian William Paley wrote that if one finds a pocket watch in a field, the most reasonable conclusion is that someone dropped it, not that natural forces created it there. By analogy, Paley argued, the complex structures of living things must be the handiwork of direct, divine invention. Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species as an answer to Paley: he explained how natural forces of selection, acting on inherited features, could gradually shape the evolution of ornate organic structures.

 

Generations of creationists have tried to counter Darwin by citing the example of the eye as a structure that could not have evolved. The eye's ability to provide vision depends on the perfect arrangement of its parts, these critics say. Natural selection could thus never favor the transitional forms needed during the eye's evolution--what good is half an eye? Anticipating this criticism, Darwin suggested that even "incomplete" eyes might confer benefits (such as helping creatures orient toward light) and thereby survive for further evolutionary refinement. Biology has vindicated Darwin: researchers have identified primitive eyes and light-sensing organs throughout the animal kingdom and have even tracked the evolutionary history of eyes through comparative genetics. (It now appears that in various families of organisms, eyes have evolved independently.)

 

Today's intelligent-design advocates are more sophisticated than their predecessors, but their arguments and goals are not fundamentally different. They criticize evolution by trying to demonstrate that it could not account for life as we know it and then insist that the only tenable alternative is that life was designed by an unidentified intelligence.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/

 

What was presented is quote mining and almost invalidates the argument by itself.

[Strange]

Apparently you haven't evolved enough to be capable of doing a simple Google Search.

 

I assume this is because you didn't get it from Sci Am, you just copied it from a Cretinist web site, thinking it supported your argument. Perhaps you should have checked the source before using it:

 

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/

 

The text your quote is #14 in the list of "nonsense" and, of course, they go on to refute it.

 

It is worrying that you and other creationists have to resort to lies like this. I am now wondering if you made up the whole "school debate" thing as an excuse to promote your religious beliefs.

[overtone]

 

 

Apparently you haven't evolved enough to be capable of doing a simple Google Search.

Google will not tell me where you got that quote, or how you came to post it here.

 

And that is the matter of interest. It is the only matter of interest in any of your posting here, actually. Who's behind this crap?

[Strange]

Who's behind this crap?

 

Gawd.

[John Cuthber]

While I PERSONALLY believe in creationism, my debate is in regards to anti-evolutionism. I'd prefer we kept it to that.

Evolution and creation are the only two candidates.

ID and it's partner IC are creationism dressed up as science (badly)

So, if you want to discuss one, you are going to discuss the other

So you're telling me that my arguments are false. Present me with a rebuttal.

OK,

"Speaking Point #1: Irreducible Complexity is the theory that humans are too advanced to have evolved from a single cell,"

Nope, it's not a theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

 

That rebuts your first point.

"Speaking Point #2: Irreducible Complexity stems from the claim that some biological systems appear to be too complex to have arisen by natural selection."

 

That's an argument from personal incredulity and, as such it's a logical fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

"Speaking Point #3: According to Scientific American, “living things have fantastically intricate features"

Another fallacy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

[Edit- it seems this isn't a logical fallacy- it's a straightforward lie]

"Speaking Point #4: Remember the story about scientists growing an ear on the back of a mouse? This point has a faint connection to that. 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. There is no DNA that flags it as a fish- not least because there is no such thing as a fish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Such_Thing_As_A_Fish#Title

 

 

Speaking Point #5: Evolution states that we evolved from single cells which somehow became cavemen along the course of time. While physical evolution is a statistic that can be recorded, mental evolution isn’t. How is it possible to “evolve” something that isn’t tangible?

That's the same fallacy as point 2

just because you can't see how something intangible can evolve doesn't mean that it can't.

For example, it's fairly easy to see how a sense of taste can evolve- it just needs cells with surface proteins that react to chemicals in the environment.

 

"Speaking Point #6: The well-known “Missing Link”. "

That's a non issue.

Just because the fossil record doesn't include everything does not mean that those things were not there. It was never expected to be a "perfect" record- why would it?

The implication that all intermediate stages should be recorded is a straw man

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

 

"Final Statement: While this is mainly a Biology debate, Irreducible Complexity can be supported by Chemistry as well."

No it can't.

 

" How is it possible that even if that single cell did in fact exist, it could sustain itself and the evolutions after it? "

It evolved to do so. The earliest cells didn't do anything that complicated, so they didn't have to.

​Your implication that all cells throughout history have done the same thing is another strawman.

 

None of your "points" is valid.

I suggest that you change sides in the debate.

Good luck anyway.

Edited January 8, 2015 by John Cuthber

[techtalknow]

Evolution and creation are the only two candidates.

ID and it's partner IC are creationism dressed up as science (badly)

So, if you want to discuss one, you are going to discuss the other

OK,

"Speaking Point #1: Irreducible Complexity is the theory that humans are too advanced to have evolved from a single cell,"

Nope, it's not a theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

 

That rebuts your first point.

"Speaking Point #2: Irreducible Complexity stems from the claim that some biological systems appear to be too complex to have arisen by natural selection."

 

That's an argument from personal incredulity and, as such it's a logical fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

"Speaking Point #3: According to Scientific American, “living things have fantastically intricate features"

Another fallacy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

 

"Speaking Point #4: Remember the story about scientists growing an ear on the back of a mouse? This point has a faint connection to that. 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. There is no DNA that flags it as a fish- not least because there is no such thing as a fish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Such_Thing_As_A_Fish#Title

 

 

Speaking Point #5: Evolution states that we evolved from single cells which somehow became cavemen along the course of time. While physical evolution is a statistic that can be recorded, mental evolution isn’t. How is it possible to “evolve” something that isn’t tangible?

That's the same fallacy as point 2

just because you can't see how something intangible can evolve doesn't mean that it can't.

For example, it's fairly easy to see how a sense of taste can evolve- it just needs cells with surface proteins that react to chemicals in the environment.

 

"Speaking Point #6: The well-known “Missing Link”. "

That's a non issue.

Just because the fossil record doesn't include everything does not mean that those things were not there. It was never expected to be a "perfect" record- why would it?

The implication that all intermediate stages should be recorded is a straw man

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

 

"Final Statement: While this is mainly a Biology debate, Irreducible Complexity can be supported by Chemistry as well."

No it can't.

 

" How is it possible that even if that single cell did in fact exist, it could sustain itself and the evolutions after it? "

It evolved to do so. The earliest cells didn't do anything that complicated, so they didn't have to.

​Your implication that all cells throughout history have done the same thing is another strawman.

 

None of your "points" is valid.

I suggest that you change sides in the debate.

Good luck anyway.

I refuse to listen to someone who sources their information from Wikipedia.

[Strange]

I refuse to listen to someone who sources their information from Wikipedia.

 

Why? That is a really feeble excuse. The articles on Wikipedia have references, often to peer-reviewed scientific papers, so there is no reason at all to dismiss it.

 

But you are happy to copy lies from creationist websites, that have no scientific support at all?

 

You asked for a rebuttal and you got it. But you are too much of a coward (or too ignorant) to answer it. And too narrow minded to learn.

Edited January 8, 2015 by Strange

[John Cuthber]

I refuse to listen to someone who sources their information from Wikipedia.

I didn't source it from wiki; I sourced it from my memory and experience.

 

I simply cited wiki so you can look up what the terms mean.

Incidentally, wiki has a very good reputation for citing sources where needed.

The fact remains that there are valid rebuttals for every "point" you have raised; and if the others in the debate have "done their homework" you are going to get trashed.

[overtone]

I assume from the comments so far, that techtalknow just copied it from a creationist website.

I'm wondering about the teacher's role in that. Let's assume for a second we really have a tenth grade student here, taking biology because for some reason the sciences are taught in reverse order of complexity and dependence in the American high schools (biology first, then the chemistry you needed to approach the biology, then the physics you needed to understand the chemistry). Then it's January, less than half way through the first biology class of their lives, and these kids are "debating" Intelligent Design before they know jack about anything, really. Who's in charge of that farce?

 

 

 

I refuse to listen to someone who sources their information from Wikipedia.

So what's your source, for the OP? You haven't said, yet. Edited January 8, 2015 by overtone

[techtalknow]

 

Why? That is a really feeble excuse. The articles on Wikipedia have references, often to peer-reviewed scientific papers, so there is no reason at all to dismiss it.

 

But you are happy to copy lies from creationist websites, that have no scientific support at all?

 

You asked for a rebuttal and you got it. But you are too much of a coward (or too ignorant) to answer it. And too narrow minded to learn.

You call me a coward? You realize you're struggling so much with a 15 year old you've stooped to calling me a narrow-minded ignorant coward?

[Strange]

You call me a coward? You realize you're struggling so much with a 15 year old you've stooped to calling me a narrow-minded ignorant coward?

 

You started the insults. And given all the other dishonest statements you have posted, I see no reason to believe you are 15.

 

Plus describing you as narrow minded is just a statement of fact: you have made it clear that that you prefer your beliefs to science.

Similarly, you are clearly ignorant of biology and evolution. So that isn't an insult either.

[John Cuthber]

It isn't "stooping".

You asked for constructive criticism, and you got it. The points he made are true.

None of us is struggling.

(and, for what it's worth, I believe you are acting like a teenager)

In any event, you are simply wrong. As I said, I didn't source my points from wiki.

So, weak as it would have been, your reason for refusing to reply, is without foundation.

 

All your points stand rebutted.

None of them is valid.

Feel free to ignore this, but remember , if you get laughed at in class, you were warned.

Edited January 8, 2015 by John Cuthber