Pro/Anti Evolution Debate

[Delta1212]

This honestly just makes me feel very sad.

[MonDie]

In reproduction whether sexual or asexual, the chances of a mutation are extremely rare, but are “statistically random” according to multiple sources. 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. [/size][/font][/color]

 

Evolution doesn't tend toward some "better" endpoint. Changes in the environment cause changes in the gene pool of a population. This doesn't make the next generation "better", just more adapted to the new environment. If the relevant environmental factors don't change, you can get what's called stabilizing selection.

Mutations are harmful far more often than beneficial, but there will always be a minimal level of functionality required for reproduction.

 

 

 

Speaking Point #3: [/size] According 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.” What does this mean? In a simplified form, all of our bodily features and processes all rely on each other. If one doesn’t work, it hampers other functions. The same can be said against evolution, laying down a strong argument supporting Irreducible Complexity. [/size]

 

Where did you find that? I couldn't find it.

 

 

 

Speaking Point #4: [/size]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 matter what, under natural circumstances, that piece will always be there. So how is it that we could evolve with different DNA without external influence? It’s a recreation of asking which came first, the chicken or the egg. Neither, an outside influence created both. 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. [/size]

 

There is no piece of DNA that says "I'm a fish". The entire genome works together to make it whatever kind of fish it is. Organisms can be categorized into clades based on how related they are, which is reflected by how similar their genomes are. For organisms that reproduce sexually, members of a species must be similar enough to produce viable offspring, else they're considered separate species.

 

 

 

Speaking Point #6: [/size]The well-known “Missing Link”. There are Missing Links all throughout the evolutionary tree. Gaps where we have no tangible evidence of evolution. Periods of time where nothing is recorded, nothing appears to evolve, and there’s nothing saying otherwise. To fill in these gaps, we’ve come to trust scientific hypothesising as official evidence without realizing that a hypothesis is just an educated guess at best. How can we create and support a scientific [/size]theory[/size] with holes all through it, spots where things are fuzzy at best? Evolution is still a theory, after all. We’ve seen supposed “evidence” and drawn our own conclusions without thinking of more legitimate alternatives. [/size][/background]

 

Of course there are missing links. If only every single one of our ancestors were conventiently preserved in a glacier somewhere.

 

I recommend studying a general biology textbook. Campbell Essential Biology will be readable to a 10th grader, and you can always get an older edition on the cheap. You'll see that evolution is an overarching theme built upon many fundamental concepts, and you'll realize how silly this Pro/Anti or True/False dichotomy is.

Intelligence could be involved somewhere, but an important part of the scientific method is to make a prediction. Scientists can't test for something unless it has predictable, reproducable effects. This is why intelligent design is a dead end that doesn't allow further investigation.

 

I probably shouldn't waste any more precious time playing teacher, so buh-bye.

 

Funnily enough, at my school, those participating against evolution have won the last three years.

 

The key to winning any debate is ensuring that you have the last word.

Edited January 9, 2015 by MonDie

[techtalknow]

 

Evolution doesn't tend toward some "better" endpoint. Changes in the environment cause changes in the gene pool of a population. This doesn't make the next generation "better", just more adapted to the new environment. If the relevant environmental factors don't change, you can get what's called stabilizing selection.

Mutations are harmful far more often than beneficial, but there will always be a minimal level of functionality required for reproduction.

 

 

 

 

Where did you find that? I couldn't find it.

 

 

 

 

There is no piece of DNA that says "I'm a fish". The entire genome works together to make it whatever kind of fish it is. Organisms can be categorized into clades based on how related they are, which is reflected by how similar their genomes are. For organisms that reproduce sexually, members of a species must be similar enough to produce viable offspring, else they're considered separate species.

 

 

 

 

Of course there are missing links. If only every single one of our ancestors were conventiently preserved in a glacier somewhere.

 

I recommend studying a general biology textbook. Campbell Essential Biology will be readable to a 10th grader, and you can always get an older edition on the cheap. You'll see that evolution is an overarching theme built upon many fundamental concepts, and you'll realize how silly this Pro/Anti or True/False dichotomy is.

Intelligence could be involved somewhere, but an important part of the scientific method is to make a prediction. Scientists can't test for something unless it has predictable, reproducable effects. This is why intelligent design is a dead end that doesn't allow further investigation.

 

I probably shouldn't waste any more precious time playing teacher, so buh-bye.

 

 

The key to winning any debate is ensuring that you have the last word.

"The key to winning any debate is ensuring that you have the last word".

 

That right here, while it is the simplest thing ever, makes the most sense of everything I've read on this thread so far.

[John Cuthber]

"The key to winning any debate is ensuring that you have the last word".

 

That right here, while it is the simplest thing ever, makes the most sense of everything I've read on this thread so far.

Indeed, and if you start with a lot of points that are trivially shown to be wrong, your opponent will get the last word by simply pointing out that your assertions are all false or fallacies.

[techtalknow]

Indeed, and if you start with a lot of points that are trivially shown to be wrong, your opponent will get the last word by simply pointing out that your assertions are all false or fallacies.

 

Well played.

[John Cuthber]

It's a bit like playing tic tac toe;

If you make the right first move (whether that's marking the middle square, or making sure that you are on the side of the debate that's supported by the evidence) it's easy to play well.

You more or less win by default.

 

Have you had a chance to rethink your points since finding that they don't make sense?

[MigL]

WOW !!

 

I just realized what terrible teachers we would all make.

This is a 14-15 yr old kid who, at least for the first two pages, showed more maturity than most of us members.

Come-on, cut him some slack. He has asked for help.

There are numerous schools that have debates on whether Hitler was good for Germany or not. We all know the answer but it 'broadens' the mind to have to consider the other side; i.e. it helps you LEARN !

 

About 15 yrs ago I had surgery on my eyes for glaucoma. The eyes are nothing but a personal petrie dish.

Before and after the surgery I had to instill anti-biotics into my eyes daily. The prescription is only good for 2 weeks and must be changed after that. Also the same anti-biotic is never re-prescribed.

There is a very simple reason for this.

In any population there are a certain number that are better suited to their environment.

In my eyes, with anti-biotic A instilled, 95% ( say ) of the bacterial population was killed, but 5% of the population was resistant to anti-biotic A, and so survived. They passed on the genetic information which made them resistant, and two weeks later, the whole bacterial population is now resistant to anti-biotic A. They have 'evolved' to a new strain and to control this new strain, we have to introduce a new 'forcing' into their environment ( my eyes ). This modification to their environment is in the form of anti-biotic B.

This again goes through the same two week process, resulting in a new bacterial strain that is now resistant to Anti-biotics A and B, and so on, and so on.

 

Now you could argue that this is intelligent design, as we, an intelligence, are 'breeding' or designing these new bacterial strains, but we'd be fooling ourselves.

It is merely a population surviving various environmental hardships by leveraging random mutations and passing those mutations from one generation to the next.

Is that not evolution ?

[techtalknow]

WOW !!

 

I just realized what terrible teachers we would all make.

This is a 14-15 yr old kid who, at least for the first two pages, showed more maturity than most of us members.

Come-on, cut him some slack. He has asked for help.

There are numerous schools that have debates on whether Hitler was good for Germany or not. We all know the answer but it 'broadens' the mind to have to consider the other side; i.e. it helps you LEARN !

 

About 15 yrs ago I had surgery on my eyes for glaucoma. The eyes are nothing but a personal petrie dish.

Before and after the surgery I had to instill anti-biotics into my eyes daily. The prescription is only good for 2 weeks and must be changed after that. Also the same anti-biotic is never re-prescribed.

There is a very simple reason for this.

In any population there are a certain number that are better suited to their environment.

In my eyes, with anti-biotic A instilled, 95% ( say ) of the bacterial population was killed, but 5% of the population was resistant to anti-biotic A, and so survived. They passed on the genetic information which made them resistant, and two weeks later, the whole bacterial population is now resistant to anti-biotic A. They have 'evolved' to a new strain and to control this new strain, we have to introduce a new 'forcing' into their environment ( my eyes ). This modification to their environment is in the form of anti-biotic B.

This again goes through the same two week process, resulting in a new bacterial strain that is now resistant to Anti-biotics A and B, and so on, and so on.

 

Now you could argue that this is intelligent design, as we, an intelligence, are 'breeding' or designing these new bacterial strains, but we'd be fooling ourselves.

It is merely a population surviving various environmental hardships by leveraging random mutations and passing those mutations from one generation to the next.

Is that not evolution ?

Thank you for posing a kind and helpful reply. I actually understand what you're trying to say.

[Fuzzwood]

Imo, we are looking at the same thing from different angles. Science doesn't need belief or faith for it to 'work'. It does however need falsifiable theories and reproducible results. On the other hand, it doesn't forbid anyone to have their own way of explaining the world to themselves or others. Either side however should expect their viewpoints are challenged. In this case, don't be surprised if your entire repetoire on ID or creationism gets shredded to bits if you post it on a science forum.

 

The moot point here is that it's hard for people from certain etnic groups to seperate themselves from their viewpoints and percieve attacks on those points as attacks on their person.

Edited January 9, 2015 by Fuzzwood

[Moontanman]

I honestly cannot see how you could debate anti vs pro evolution, for there to be a debate both sides would have to armed with falsifiable evidence, creationism which the OP has stated he is using has no evidence and cannot be used to refute any evolutionary evidence unless it is used dishonestly like the Scientific American quote mine near the beginning of this thread.

[cladking]

Imo, we are looking at the same thing from different angles.

 

Exactly.

 

It is my contention that reality can be simply invisible from the "wrong" perspective. Seeing reality is dependent on one's beliefs being consistent with the parameters of that reality. Facts are always facts from every perspective but their interpretation is a result of knowledge, extrapolation, and beliefs that are inate to the way we think.

I honestly cannot see how you could debate anti vs pro evolution, for there to be a debate both sides would have to armed with falsifiable evidence, creationism which the OP has stated he is using has no evidence and cannot be used to refute any evolutionary evidence unless it is used dishonestly like the Scientific American quote mine near the beginning of this thread.

 

The bulk of the "falsifiable evidence" for evolution is actually extrapolation of the specific to the general. It's impossible to falsify the legitimacy of these extrapolations at this time and they exist outside of metaphysics and are supported primarily by logic dependent on language but most importantly, are at odds with observation.

[iNow]

Uhuh. >> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/04/

[Ten oz]

If something is fact, that means its true no matter what, correct? If we are able to prove a fact wrong then the theory/idea it was based on is inherently incorrect...

Electricity is a theory. We are still learning more about it all the time. When Telsa created the first AC induction motor it didn't disprove DC or electricity as a whole.

[Strange]

If something is fact, that means its true no matter what, correct? If we are able to prove a fact wrong then the theory/idea it was based on is inherently incorrect...

 

And another example:

 

Newton's theory of gravity was found to be inaccurate (it couldn't correctly explain the precession of Mercury).

 

Now we have a new theory (relativity) which is much more accurate. But Newton's theory is still good enough for most uses, even though it is "wrong".

 

And one day, we may have a better theory than relativity. But relativity will still be as accurate as it is now. And Newton's theiry will still be just as good.

 

The number of cases where a theory has been completely overthrown is vanishingly small.

[John Cuthber]

Electricity is a theory. We are still learning more about it all the time. When Telsa created the first AC induction motor it didn't disprove DC or electricity as a whole.

Would you like to explain what you think that means?

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

I have split off Cladking's branch - it really had more to do with his unhappiness with (miscomprehension of?) current theory than the topic of this thread which a formal debate between ID and real science.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/87356-split-from-proanti-evolution-debate/

 

Please stick to the OP, go to newly created thread, or open new topic.

 

---

Merged post follows:

If I have missed anything - or moved in error - let me know

If I have missed anything or moved anything in error let me know

[Mad For Science]

All of your talking points are basically an argument from ignorance by the people who proposed them. Basically they are saying that because they do not understand how these aspects of biology evolved that evolution could not have possibly be true.

 

It always pays to remember Orgels second rule:

 

Evolution is cleverer than you are.

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

If someone ever comes up with a model that is any serious competition with the theory of evolution then those pesky 'evolutionists' might allow for it. It's been over 150 years and no one ever has, not even close.

[idjames]

Evolution in action:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOVtrxUtzfk