Pro/Anti Evolution Debate

[overtone]

 

 

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

So put your teacher, or mentor, or whoever put you up to this, on this forum, and we'll have a word or two with them.

 

In particular, tell us where and from whom you got the dishonest, unethical quote from Sci Am. Give us a link, or a name, or something.

[John Cuthber]

So put your teacher, or mentor, or whoever put you up to this, on this forum, and we'll have a word or two with them.

 

In particular, tell us where and from whom you got the dishonest, unethical quote from Sci Am. Give us a link, or a name, or something.

 

I'm not sure how good an idea that is.

If he's really a schoolkid (and he's acting like one) then naming a school teacher on this site might get him into trouble.

it shouldn't; any teacher ought to be able to defend their actions, but it's entirely possible that someone who misleads their classes is a bully in other ways too.

 

Also, it hardly matters.

It's some kid or someone pretending to be a kid.

Their arguments are equally invalid; the refutations are the same.

 

Also, it's late and I'm off to bed.

Edited January 8, 2015 by John Cuthber

[Moontanman]

 

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.

 

 

Personally I don't give a narrow rats behind if I insult your teacher if he or she is as ignorant as you claim, I would debate him any day.

 

I have actually watched evolution in progress in my Daphnia magna vats, they normally grow to about the size of a BB gun pellet but over the course of a year or so if you use a net that only harvests the largest ones soon they will stop growing larger and reproduce at a smaller size eventually they will no longer grow large under any conditions.

 

This can also be seen in the wild as well, in heavily fished waters where the largest fish are kept and the small ones are thrown back the population will start breeding at a smaller and smaller size until there are no fish large enough to keep.

 

Evolution is a fact, living things change over time, the mechanism for this change can vary from simply surviving to reproduce to sexual selection where one sexes preferences drives the evolution of the other sex.

 

Your argument is nothing but PRATT Points Refuted a Thousand Times, you have brought nothing new to the table, you are in a gun fight and you are the only one with out a gun.

 

One thing I don't think i saw brought up is the DNA record, the fossil record was at one time relatively incomplete but now we have an abundance of fossils and with them we can trace the ancestry of nearly all living things but more importantly the DNA follows that same course and shows the relationships between different organisms is far more than just similarity in looks.

 

Since you keep bringing up ID and creationism I am going to assume you are a Young Earth Creationist, one of those misguided individuals who think the earth is less than 10,000 years old and that all modern life forms were created in their present form by god.

 

This is demonstrably wrong due to both fossils and radioactive dating as well as the geological column, the earth is 4.5 billion years old, the first traces of life occur around 3.8 billion years ago the first complex animals occur around 550 to 600 million years ago and in the intervening time you will not find any fossils out of place, no bunny rabbits in the Cambrian, no humans in the Cretaceous and no dinosaurs in the Silurian.

 

I suggest you stop looking only at things your preconceptions agree with and start looking at the real science because if you are being taught those things you are being robbed of your education, you are being lied to and those lies will cripple your ability to be a productive adult.

 

I think you should invite your teacher here if no one else will (and i doubt that) I will be glad to go into great detail why you OP is worse than wrong and that in fact it is dishonest to assert such things as true..

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

techtalknow,


First and foremost, your attitude here sucks. If you have come here for genuine discussion and debate, you should be willing to take the constructive comments directed at you and respond to them rather than cherry picking one-liners you believe to be an attack on your faith. No one here is doing that. Even if they were, it doesn't then mean you get to be insulting in return. If you think you are being personally attacked (note that this is not the same as having your ideas attacked), then report the post and let staff deal with it.

Secondly, stop shifting the goal posts. The use of logical fallacy is not allowed here for the simple reason that it is a disingenuous way to hold discussion. You asked a question about evolution. You don't get to redefine those terms when people reposed to you with valid science by saying you were specifically talking about human evolution. Regardless, the science that applies to the evolution of dogs or bacteria is the same as it is for humans.

Finally, cite your sources. You claim to have a quote from SciAm, so please provide a link. Edit: I missed that this was later linked. Thanks, overtone, for mentioning it.

This is the only chance I am going to give you in this thread. As a side note, you really do need to take some time to study biology if you want to argue the science behind some of it. Stubborn agendas are not welcome here and if you do not rectify your attitude, your time here will probably be quite short. Do not reply to this mod note in-thread. If you have a problem with it, PM staff or report the post.

[overtone]

The OP quote from Sci Am is genuine - it has been linked above, to the magazine, and I recalled reading it.

 

But it is dishonest - deliberately edited out of context to alter its meaning.

 

The question is where and from whom the OP poster obtained it, and how they came by the idea of posting it here in this deceptive form. If it really is a tenth grade class project, and the sources etc were suggested or provided by the teacher as is common, then that is a serious matter: unless it can be explained somehow (startling incompetence is not that rare in the science classrooms of American high schools - I recall a researcher discovering that a fair percentage of science teachers were unable to employ two wires and a battery to get light from a small incandescent bulb), that is a career threatening ethical lapse.

Edited January 8, 2015 by overtone

[Sensei]

It seems you have been caught up in believing evolution is science, when it is indeed a religion—an anti-Christian religion.

 

Evolution is science, not religion.

We're not praying to fossils, but study them.

Classify to which branch of evolution given sample should belong. Filling gaps (if such exists) after new discovered fossil.

It's like puzzle. One block fits perfectly between two other found previously.

That's how you know birds are related to Tyrannosaurs..

 

Studying living organisms is even easier, as we have their DNA, and can compare between species to find similarities.

 

We can tell from your DNA were your ancestors living hundred years ago. Whether they were Jude, Polish, German, Roman, French, Irish, African or Chinese..

Edited January 8, 2015 by Sensei

[Greg H.]

ALSO, Why is it that evolutionists are unwilling to allow for competing models, i.e., creation or even intelligent design? 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?

 

Science always allows for competing theories assuming they meet the following criteria:

 

1. They account for all existing experimental evidence, and

2. They better (or more precisely) explain the observed phonomenon.

 

However, that does not necessarily mean that the old theory was wrong, only that the new one better explains the science in question. GR replacing Newton is a good example of this - and yet we can still use Newton's ideas for problems that do not happen at relativistic speeds, because they are a good enough approximation of what happens.

 

If you want to deal in absolute truths, I suggest you work in mathematics. 1 + 0 = 1 is a fact that never changes. Proper scientific theories change repeatedly based on new evidence or refinements in the models that support them.

[Arete]

I'd rather I got constructive, helpful feedback on my OG post instead of having my beliefs insulted and belittled.

 

The main issue with the argument for irreducible complexity is that it basically boils down to a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad ignorantium or the argument from ignorance. In essence, the argument is based on the fact that someone (in this case, yourself) doesn't understand or accept the mechanism by which a single celled common ancestor gave rise to multi-cellular life forms. The reason that the argument is illogical is that a lack of understanding of how a proposed mechanism functions is in no way a proof that rejects the mechanism. Therefore the argument has no logical basis and can be trivially dismissed.

 

Furthermore, most, if not all, of the examples thrust forward as "irreducible" have been shown conclusively to be reducible. e.g. the bacterial flagellum http://www.nature.com/nrmicro/journal/v4/n10/full/nrmicro1493.html

[cladking]

 

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? And how could these mental changes be recorded if there isn’t any physical evidence to record? If someone writes down “This new life form seems smarter”, is that going to be taken as legitimate evidence? Hopefully not, there’s nothing to back it up.

 

 

Nature doesn't really present humans or any animals with IQ tests and only the fittest survive. Indeed in modern times "intelligence" is likely an impediment to individual human survival and reproduction. If cavemen had been less able to understand their enviroment they'd have simply lived in fewer areas; the best habitats. But just as beavers can create ideal habitat and adapt to a wide range of habitats so can man. Less capable tribes of humans or beavers will simply always have their lunch eaten by the more capable and they will tend to become extinct to the last individual.

 

There is no such thing as "mental evolution". Nature someday might come up with a means to breed for intelligence or some animal might do it intentionally but so far there doesn't seem to be very good reason to believe it has occured. All human progress is from study and learning (by and invented by individuals) and has nothing to do with "intelligence". Nowhere does the Bible say "God created intelligence" and understanding is never found in any books. Books teach us what others have learned and all of this learning was accomplished in concert and by methodical study of nature or thought.

 

If there is any significant change in the "intelligence" of humans (as a whole) over time then we are quickly sliding down a slope. Cavemen were quite possibly much more "intelligent" but far less knowledgeable because they lacked libraries and the knowledge to build them and fill them with books.

[techtalknow]

 

Science always allows for competing theories assuming they meet the following criteria:

 

1. They account for all existing experimental evidence, and

2. They better (or more precisely) explain the observed phonomenon.

 

However, that does not necessarily mean that the old theory was wrong, only that the new one better explains the science in question. GR replacing Newton is a good example of this - and yet we can still use Newton's ideas for problems that do not happen at relativistic speeds, because they are a good enough approximation of what happens.

 

If you want to deal in absolute truths, I suggest you work in mathematics. 1 + 0 = 1 is a fact that never changes. Proper scientific theories change repeatedly based on new evidence or refinements in the models that support them.

Evolution is a religion against creationism. If you're against evolution, then you're for its opposite. By being against evolution you accept that there are other scientific or religious possibilities, including Intelligent Design by a divine maker.

[cladking]

This is anopther thing that disturbs me about the theory of evolution. When Darwin invented it he didn't know that humans and oak trees shared vast amounts of DNA just like the vast majority of all life on the planet. In those days they were stll grouping species by appearances. That life evolved somewhere from single celled organisms is apparent but that life on earth originated on earth seems much less likely in light of this evidence. The similarity in life forms and the extremely complicated DNA seems to suggest that life "blew in on the cosmic wind" rather than evolved independently. There are a few life forms very different than the rest which might be the true terrestrials. These involve the organisms that feed on sulphur at the deed ocean vents. Perhaps once the planet became capable of supporting life it evolved and it was simultaneously seeded from the outside.

[iNow]

Evolution is a religion against creationism.

No, it's really not, and even very high profile religious leaders acknowledge this. If you must use lies and falsehoods to support your argument, perhaps your argument is itself rather flawed and wrong enough to abandon.

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/10/pope-francis-evolution/382143/

[Pope Francis:]“When we read in Genesis the account of Creation, we risk imagining that God was a magician, with such a magic wand as to be able to do everything. However, it was not like that…And thus creation went forward for centuries and centuries, millennia and millennia until it became what we know today, in fact because God is not a demiurge or a magician, but the Creator who gives being to all entities.”

 

“The Big-Bang, that is placed today at the origin of the world, does not contradict the divine intervention but exacts it. The evolution in nature is not opposed to the notion of Creation, because evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve.”

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/19956961/ns/world_news-europe/t/pope-creation-vs-evolution-clash-absurdity/

[Pope Benedict:]Pope Benedict XVI said the debate raging in some countries — particularly the United States and his native Germany — between creationism and evolution was an “absurdity,” saying that evolution can coexist with faith.

The pontiff, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said that while there is much scientific proof to support evolution, the theory could not exclude a role by God.

“They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” the pope said. “This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/religion/faith/statement_01.html

[Pope John Paul II:]Well-informed Catholics do not see conflict between their religious beliefs and the Darwinian theory of biological evolution. In 1996, Pope John Paul II stated that the conclusions reached by scientific disciplines cannot be in contradiction with divine Revelation, then proceeded to accept the scientific conclusion that evolution is a well-established theory.

[Strange]

Evolution is a religion against creationism.

 

Of course not.

 

Firstly, someone has already mentioned that there needn't be a conflict between science and religion. You could take a look at this, for example:

BioLogos: Science and faith in harmony

• What is Evolutionary Creation?

  The view that all life on earth came about by the God-ordained process of evolution with common descent. Evolution is a means by which God providentially achieves his purposes in creation.

• Why Should Christians Consider Evolutionary Creation?

  Because it can aid the church's mission: to worship our Creator God, raise Christian young people, and bring people to Christ.

• Science and Scripture

  BioLogos is committed to the authority of the Bible as the inspired word of God, and believes it is compatible with new scientific discoveries.

 

 

Secondly, you can see evolution happening all around you - how do you think we ended up with modern food plants?

 

What about anti-biotic resistance?

 

What about the various experiments that people have referred to, where evolution is recreated in the lab? You have just chosen to ignore those. Why?

 

What about the fact that all organisms can be shown to be related in a structured way (the "tree of life")? (Maybe your "creator" has a very orderly mind, but why didn't she ever create one organism that didn't fit into an evolutionary description? Not one organism with completely different DNA - or no DNA at all.)

 

No doubt you will come up with more excuses (like "I'm only talking about humans" earlier).

 

Or you might say "but they are only small changes within a 'kind', not new species". In which case you might want to look at this: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

(Actually, I'm sure you won't want to look at that. You might be in danger of learning something.)

 

 

By being against evolution you accept that there are other scientific or religious possibilities, including Intelligent Design by a divine maker.

 

We all accept that there are other scientific possibilities. But ID is not scientific - and is contradicted by the evidence. I'm afraid that if it is a choice between religion and reality (i.e. objective evidence) then reality has to win.

[Arete]

Evolution is a religion against creationism.

 

This statement is inherently incorrect, but I fear indicates a fundamental lack of knowldege regarding basic biology. I'm very sorry if this is what you are being told as part of your schooling, as it's simply a lie, and that isn't fair to you.

 

I think a few basic defintions are needed:

 

1. Biological evolution: At its most basic sense, evolution is the change in allele frequency, in a population, over time. This phenomenon has been directly observed countless times, in virtually (likely every, but I'll avoid absolute claims) population that has ever been looked at. Through scientific investigation we understand, to a large extent, that mutations in the DNA/RNA genome of organisms are heritable, and largely responsible for the physical changes observed in populations over time (i.e. mutation causes observed changes in allele frequency) . We also know that particular environmental conditions and circumstances favor the propagation of particular genotypes (i.e. selection influences observed changes in allele frequency).

Prima facie biological evolution is an observable fact.

2. The theory of evolution: The theory of evolution postulates that all of the organismal diversity of Earth occurs due to biological evolution. While this obviously cannot be directly observed due to the time scale involved, like many other scientific theories which occur over long time scales (e.g. plate tectonics, the formation of fossil fuels, most of geology and astrophysics, etc.) we can make predictions about what present day organisms will be like, if organimsal diversification did arise through biological evolution.

Examples of biological fields which make predictions in accordance with the theory of evolution include (but are not limited to): comparative genomics, phylogenetics, biogeography, morphology, molecular ecology, population genetics, experimental evolution, paleontology, and many others.

The establishment and continual testing and refinement of the theory of evolution DOES follow the scientific method - any claim to the contrary is simply false. Additionally, any claim that the theory of evolution is based on unsupported speculation is, at best, supremely ignorant of the vast number of supporting observations which are in accordance with predictions made using the theory of evolution, and finally, if direct observation is required for a scientific theory to be somehow "valid" then vast swathes of science (geology, atomic science, astrophysics, etc) are also invalid - which doesn't make very much sense.

3. Theory: In science, a theory is a well substantiated explanation of observable phenomena. Theory is as strong as an explanation gets in science. A common misconception is that a theoy is secondary to a scientific law. This is incorrect. A Law in science is generally an observation that holds true for all replications - to demonstrate, the LAW of gravity is that if you drop something, it accelerates towards the earth at 9.8ms^-1. The THEORY is that this observation is explained by attractive forces between the Earth and the dropped object.

Edited January 8, 2015 by Arete

[cladking]

Evolution is a religion against creationism. If you're against evolution, then you're for its opposite. By being against evolution you accept that there are other scientific or religious possibilities, including Intelligent Design by a divine maker.

 

"Evolution" is a paradigm to explain numerous facts and extensive evidence. It was invented to fit Darwin's understanding and, for the main part, it has withstood the test of time. There do appear to be some flaws in its ability to explain all the evidence suggesting it is at best "incomplete". Whether "God" played a role in the reality that caused a failure of the paradigm to adequately explain observation or not isn't testable at this time. If the paradigm is rebuilt then there might be a means to test for the "God factor" or perhaps not. Science must use a methodology to learn about nature and then the resultant is only true within the confines of its definitions and methods. When the methodolgy fails there is no truth in any parameters or within any set of definitions.

 

It is certainly true that most individuals really do "believe" in these paradigms and in my opinion this "belief" is misplaced. But there certainly aren't only two sides to every argument. Which each have our own perspective and experience. While I might sometimes seem to scoff at the scientific process it's only because it is a weak tool and has not uncovered much of reality yet. It can't make accurate predictions and the paradigms never explain ALL the evidence. While it's a weak tool it's the only tool that is at this time generating extensive knowledge. We may be nearly totally ignorant but we don't have other species eating our lunch. We may be threatened with extinction by our weaknesses and inaccuracies in our paradigms but populations have never been higher so we must be doing something right.

[Strange]

 

It was invented to fit Darwin's understanding and, for the main part, it has withstood the test of time.

 

Actually, the concept had been around for a long time before that. Even some ancient Greek philosophers had speculated about it. What Wallace and Darwin did (independently, which is a nice confirmation of the scientific method) is come up with a theory to explain it.

[techtalknow]

So then how is it that the materials for the Big Bang or whatever came into existance? What created time? Or material? Existance, substance? Matter cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be made to change forms. But does that mean that everything we are today has just been recycled and changed forms over the millenia, or does that allow you to accept the possible existance of an Intelligent Designer?

[iNow]

So then how is it that the materials for the Big Bang or whatever came into existance? What created time? Or material? Existance, substance? Matter cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be made to change forms. But does that mean that everything we are today has just been recycled and changed forms over the millenia, or does that allow you to accept the possible existance of an Intelligent Designer?

The appropriate answer to these questions is, "We have some insights and continue to learn more each day, but do not yet know everything for sure and continue to study it." The appropriate answers to these questions is NOT, "Goddidit."

[Strange]

So then how is it that the materials for the Big Bang or whatever came into existance?

 

We don't know. We don't even know if they did come into existence. It might have always existed. So, if you want to propose that your god created the big bang, there isn't currently any evidence against that. I guess quite a lot of intelligent Christians believe that God set the whole thing in motion; created the laws of physics and chemistry that would allow the universe to evolve from its intial hot, dense state and then allow stars planet and, eventually, life to form and evolve into modern humans.

[Arete]

So then how is it that the materials for the Big Bang or whatever came into existance? What created time? Or material? Existance, substance? Matter cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be made to change forms. But does that mean that everything we are today has just been recycled and changed forms over the millenia, or does that allow you to accept the possible existance of an Intelligent Designer?

 

The theory of evolution does not make any predictions or statements regarding the origin of the universe, or even biological life - so I'm not sure how this question fits with the thread topic.

[John Cuthber]

So then how is it that the materials for the Big Bang or whatever came into existance? What created time? Or material? Existance, substance? Matter cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be made to change forms. But does that mean that everything we are today has just been recycled and changed forms over the millenia, or does that allow you to accept the possible existance of an Intelligent Designer?

Do you know that there are scientific theories that answer those questions?

At the moment they are a bit speculative- but that's only to be expected. The evidence is a bit obscure.

Here's one well known example.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory

 

So all you did there was illustrate that you don't understand science. That's not particularly surprising, given your age, but don't you think you should learn about a subject before "taking on the world" on the internet?

Anyway, it has nothing to do with the topic in hand.

[imatfaal]

So then how is it that the materials for the Big Bang or whatever came into existance?...

 

We don't know. You won't find many religious zealots saying this - but scientists are almost always willing to accept their own ignorance. But it means nothing for your question which was about earth-bound evolution - and we have pretty good theories, that go from a tiniest fraction after the big bang to now, explaining how the the ingredients for life ended up on earth. (FYG it takes more than 6000years) .

 

 

... What created time? Or material? Existance, substance? ...

 

Again don't know - more philosophical than science. And still doesn't affect evolution in the slightest

 

Matter cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be made to change forms.

 

Actually - it can. Nuclear Fusion is the basis of the Sun's power generation - it is quite complex but science has got to grips with it.

 

...But does that mean that everything we are today has just been recycled and changed forms over the millenia,

 

Apart from the mass converted to energy then yes everything else is recycled - you are really made of stardust! All the heavy elements of the universe are products of now extinct Stars.

... or does that allow you to accept the possible existance of an Intelligent Designer?

 

No. That our earth bound theories allow us to make predictions about the most distant of objects and phenomena in the observable universe, then observe years later when our technology catches up with our ideas, and finally find our predictions were correct - that makes me awed by the power of science.

[andrewcellini]

So then how is it that the materials for the Big Bang or whatever came into existance...

you're asking questions that are way outside the scope of the theory of evolution; you made a jump from biology to cosmology and cosmogony. perhaps if you understood more about evolution you would ask more relevant questions.

Edited January 8, 2015 by andrewcellini

[Greg H.]

Evolution is a religion against creationism. If you're against evolution, then you're for its opposite. By being against evolution you accept that there are other scientific or religious possibilities, including Intelligent Design by a divine maker.

 

You have committed what is known as the fallacy of the false dichotomy. Just because someone questions evolutionary science does not automatically mean that they need to invoke the God of the Gaps to explain things.

 

Also, neither evolution nor creationism are religions. In fact, they're not even adressing the same field of science. Cretionism more properly argues against abiogenesis. Evolution has nothing to do with where life came from - only what happens after it arises.

Edited January 8, 2015 by Greg H.

[Fuzzwood]

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.

Science neither need nor care for your faith in order to work. There is tangible, reproducible evidence out there; you were refered to several papers and even a movie (though the latter is not scientific evidence per se) which shows that irriducible complexity has been refuted several times and is therefore a faulty theory.

So then how is it that the materials for the Big Bang or whatever came into existance? What created time? Or material? Existance, substance? Matter cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be made to change forms. But does that mean that everything we are today has just been recycled and changed forms over the millenia, or does that allow you to accept the possible existance of an Intelligent Designer?

That has nothing to do with the scope of this topic nor evolution. You are pulling something called a red herring here.