Evolution

[Peregrine]

4) "Evolution doesn't explain the origin of life", which, while a true statement, is not an argument. Theories are only expected to explain a narrow range of mechanisms. There is no such thing as a universal theory, it would be far too vague and/or have too much irrelevant information to be useful.

 

You do know those are 4 arguments, don't you?

 

 

Read. Three arguments, one irrelevant statement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Ok, so I changed the list, and forgot to go back and edit the first sentence)

[name_not_availble]

You know, for once I actually like this no religion rule... lets see if any of you can debate the subject without falling back on bible quotes. The "intelligent design" crowd claims that evolution can be disproved on purely scientific and empirical grounds, and I know we have at least one supporter of that position here. So here's the challenge... SickleYield, lets see if you have the metaphorical balls (yes, I know you're a woman) to do this in public. Or anyone else, really... if you feel you're up to it, post your arguments.

 

 

Now then, the background...

 

SickleYield, and likely other users of this forum, claims to have university-level degrees in biology and chemistry. Despite this, she believes (casting serious doubt on those supposed degrees) that the universe is between 6-10,000 years old, evolution fails to provide an explanation of the complexity of life on earth, empiricism and science are not capable of describing the entire universe, and various other things. Against this position is essentially all of science: all of modern biology, all of astronomy, large sections of physics, large sections of chemistry (including all of organic/biochem), and significant parts of ancient history (including continuous historical records of human civilizations older than 10,000 years).

 

SickleYield, I challenge you, or any other supporters of this "theory" to present your case against evolution. The following options are available areas of discussion:

 

* The countless dating methods, based on well-known physical constants, that prove the universe (as well as the earth in general, and all life on it) is orders of magnitude older than 6-10,000 years.

 

* The overall Darwinian theory of mutation and natural selection, including the well-documented examples that have been observed happening in recent history.

 

* Any of the various claims of "irreducible complexity" that have been made. I strongly encourage these, they're a lot of fun to disprove.

 

* The origins of (primitive) life itself. Note that despite popular misconception, this is NOT a part of the Theory of Evolution, I simply include it here because it may be interesting.

 

* Any of the assorted "scientific" arguments against evolution (entropy/thermodynamics, etc).

 

* The "missing link" problem, if you believe one exists.

 

* For those of you who generally agree with me, but have questions/disagreements about the specific details (punctuated equilibrium vs. gradualism, etc) , feel free to post them.

 

* The concepts of empiricism and the scientific method, and whether they are capable (or the best method) of finding the truth of the universe.

 

RELIGION, HOWEVER, IS NOT IN ANY WAY AN ACCEPTABLE ARGUMENT. YOU WILL KEEP THIS DISCUSSION ON SCIENTIFIC TERMS, AND SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENTS WITH FACTS AND LOGIC. ANY MENTION OF FAITH, GODS, RELIGIONS, ETC, WILL BE IGNORED AND REPORTED TO THE MODERATORS.

 

There are a few major flaws I can see with the evolutionary theory. The first is the assumption that a cell, or a primitive piece of genetic material created in an instant burst of energy has enough complex genetic material that is required, in precise amounts which enable it to multiply. For example, in some lightning strike, a primitive form of DNA or RNA is generated, pfft yeah right.

 

Secondly, i have a problem with the theory of a single celled organism changing to a multi-cellular organism. This would require, once again almost a complete re-writing of genetic material, simply coming from no where.

 

My third problem, is when organisms seeming turned from asexual to sexual entities. Firstly, evolution is based upon the principles of natural selection. How is reducing the amount of offspring of an organism, (whose only apparent purpose is to reproduce or it is considered a failure of its species) benefiting the species in any way what so ever, if the circumstances of survival are not improved. Asexually reproducing organisms usually do so due to the high risk factor to their offspring. In the changing course from asexual to sexual, this risk would not have decreased, and also the genetic material required for this form of reproduction would have had to come from no where.

 

This reproduction problem also “may have occurred over millions of years”. Yeah right, some poor species is going to have half a penis for 20 million years.

 

In conclusion, the odds that we evolved are so infinitely insignificant and minute that anyone who thinks about the detailed steps logically, with an open mind should be able to rationally realize that we did not evolve.

[Switch]

As for evolution being a religion, you are a ****ing idiot. You have been told directly by a moderator not to discuss religion on this forum. So stop doing it.

Why should he learn to stop borderline religious debate when you don't learn to stop flaming? You two share that attribute in common. Flame one more time and I lock the thread.

 

Notice I use the words borderline religious debate. I'm hearing stuff from you about people debating religion, but I don't see full-blown statements using religion as a basis for argument. Quote:

 

Debates cannot be started about religion (i.e. Why does God say this? Why is there more than one religion? etc.) and religion cannot come into your argument (I believe that abortion is wrong because God says it is. I think homosexual marriages should not be allowed because my religion dictates it's wrong. etc.).

This is as it is stated in the religion ban rules. From my understanding it's using your personal religious beliefs as an argument tool, which I haven't really seen here properly, though some of the posts are borderline. I would throw hardcore creationism in with the whole religious beliefs bit, so let's avoid that too.

 

hoots7 and other people who have been toeing the line, I'm asking you to keep it clean - that means no use of the "r" word at all. Because at this rate the thread is going to get locked.

[FritzDerochebrune]

There are a few major flaws I can see with the evolutionary theory.

Your statements do have a point. After I 'capitulated' a few weeks ago, I began thinking in that direction as well. How can it be that from nothing a living being was created (this is in the way evolutionist see it, creationist do have a reason for that)? How did one celled creatures began to have multiple cells (as they don't reproduce sexually, they 'clone' themselves) so indeed, a complete restructure of RNA/DNA (however you wish to call it) is required to do that. Of course, Peregrine can say this is the beginning, and not evolution. But without beginning, there would be no evolution at all.

 

And another thing: if creatures indeed came crawling out of the sea, how would they do that? Why would evolution suddenly give legs to a fish? And there is a huge difference between breathing in water and out of it. And how did they evolve in mamals? A fish and a rat are completely different.

 

I do believe pieces of the theory of evolution are true, but it can't be we all just came out of one-celled organisms. It would be more reasonable to have a wider base, with multiple-celled organisms at the beginning as well.

 

I see now I was looking in the wrong direction last time, that's why I had to capitulate.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And about the r-word rule: I think this topic does have r-word thoughts behind it. It is Evolutionist v. Creationist, and although no r-word-based arguements may be used, a scientific arguement can always be found.

You know, for once I actually like this no religion rule... lets see if any of you can debate the subject without falling back on bible quotes.

This can be seen as a taunt, 'R-word arguments are banned, so let's discuss something that has to do with it...'

 

Just my thoughts.

 

cya

 

Fritz

[ninja_lord666]

How did one celled creatures began to have multiple cells (as they don't reproduce sexually, they 'clone' themselves)

Single celled organisms began to group together into small colonies and after many hundreds of thousands of years, became one organism.

 

 

And another thing: if creatures indeed came crawling out of the sea, how would they do that? Why would evolution suddenly give legs to a fish? And there is a huge difference between breathing in water and out of it. And how did they evolve in mamals? A fish and a rat are completely different.

Survival. In shallow riverbeds, there would be many small fish living peacefully eating their algae when all of a sudden, a large predator would swim through and gobble up all the fish it could. Since the water was so shallow, the only way to survive would be to jump out of the water. Soon, fish became animals similar to the mudskipper. Then, since there was nothing above water that could eat them, they became amphibians so that they could live on land permanently, thus avoiding getting eaten. The amphibians slowly became reptiles so that they could loose their dependence on water and venture further away from the rivers, ponds, lakes, etc. and find more food. Then, the reptiles became mammals so they could produce their own body heat, thus becoming more versatile.

 

 

I do believe pieces of the theory of evolution are true, but it can't be we all just came out of one-celled organisms. It would be more reasonable to have a wider base, with multiple-celled organisms at the beginning as well.

That's just stupid. It is possible for a one celled organism to become multiple celled organisms as I explained above.

 

 

And about the r-word rule: I think this topic does have r-word thoughts behind it. It is Evolutionist v. Creationist, and although no r-word-based arguements may be used, a scientific arguement can always be found.

This topic is about evolution not evolution vs creation. It's just that everyone's bringing creation into the debate. It's very easy to debate evolution without even once mentioning anything about religion or creation.

[Peregrine]

This is as it is stated in the religion ban rules. From my understanding it's using your personal religious beliefs as an argument tool, which I haven't really seen here properly, though some of the posts are borderline. I would throw hardcore creationism in with the whole religious beliefs bit, so let's avoid that too.

 

hoots7 and other people who have been toeing the line, I'm asking you to keep it clean - that means no use of the "r" word at all. Because at this rate the thread is going to get locked.

 

 

The issue is hoots7 constantly making these borderline posts where if I responded appropriately, you would accuse me of breaking the rules and lock the thread. So he gets his view put out there uncontested, and that is not even remotely fair. This is a debate, one side shouldn't have immunity to counter-argument.

 

 

=======================================

 

There are a few major flaws I can see with the evolutionary theory. The first is the assumption that a cell, or a primitive piece of genetic material created in an instant burst of energy has enough complex genetic material that is required, in precise amounts which enable it to multiply. For example, in some lightning strike, a primitive form of DNA or RNA is generated, pfft yeah right.

 

Strawman. The Theory of Evolution does NOT make any claims about the origins of the first life, only what happened once it formed. Even worse, no legitimate scientific theory claims that DNA came into being in its complex modern form. The first replicators were simple chemical compounds, over time, they added complexity, added structures, etc. DNA and RNA are far down the line from those initial forms.

 

Secondly, i have a problem with the theory of a single celled organism changing to a multi-cellular organism. This would require, once again almost a complete re-writing of genetic material, simply coming from no where.

 

And you are completely wrong. Changing from a single cell to multiple cells is actually very easy. The first instances of it would have been extremely inefficient, and probably involved colonies of single-cell organisms as a starting point. Specialization in cells is far, far down the line from this point, you would have seen very little difference between the first multicellular organisms and a pair of single-cell organisms sitting next to each other.

 

My third problem, is when organisms seeming turned from asexual to sexual entities. Firstly, evolution is based upon the principles of natural selection. How is reducing the amount of offspring of an organism, (whose only apparent purpose is to reproduce or it is considered a failure of its species) benefiting the species in any way what so ever, if the circumstances of survival are not improved.

 

Two reasons:

 

1) Asexual vs. sexual reproduction has absolutely nothing to do with the rate of reproduction. The only reason asexual organisms tend to reproduce so fast is asexual organisms also tend to be extremely small and simple.

 

2) Sexual reproduction has huge advantages in mixing genes. A sexually-reproducing species will adapt to its environment much faster than an asexual one.

 

This reproduction problem also “may have occurred over millions of years”. Yeah right, some poor species is going to have half a penis for 20 million years.

 

Wrong. The external sexual organs have absolutely nothing to do with sexual reproduction. Remember, sexual reproduction also includes plant pollen and all the various fish who mix their sex cells by squirting them out into the water.

 

And in any case, you don't have half a penis, you just have a shorter-than-modern penis, accompanied by female reproductive organs of similar size. At every size from a small bump paired with a shallow cup to full porn-star proportions, sexual reproduction is possible.

 

In conclusion, the odds that we evolved are so infinitely insignificant and minute that anyone who thinks about the detailed steps logically, with an open mind should be able to rationally realize that we did not evolve.

 

Clearly you don't understand the power of cumulative selection. Evolution is NOT random. Cumulative selection is able to produce an end result orders of magnitude faster than random chance. In fact, if you properly understand natrual selection, genetics, and anatomy, the odds that we did NOT evolve are so minute that it is blindingly obvious that we did.

[Peregrine]

Double posted because I have "exceeded the maximum allowed blocks of quoted text." Dark0ne, fix your forums.

 

 

===================================

 

There are a few major flaws I can see with the evolutionary theory.

Your statements do have a point. After I 'capitulated' a few weeks ago, I began thinking in that direction as well. How can it be that from nothing a living being was created (this is in the way evolutionist see it, creationist do have a reason for that)?

 

Organic compounds can form without life. At some point, a self-replicating organic compound happened to form. Due to the power of exponential growth, that organic compound would quickly dominate all available resources. At that point, natural selection takes over, as small copying errors either die out or out-compete the old version for the limited resources. From this point, it's just a matter of increasing complexity... more complex gene-equivalents to hold more information, cell walls to protect those replicating compounds, etc.

 

How did one celled creatures began to have multiple cells (as they don't reproduce sexually, they 'clone' themselves) so indeed, a complete restructure of RNA/DNA (however you wish to call it) is required to do that.

 

Sexual reproduction is also a complete cloning of DNA. Half of your DNA is cloned from each parent, the only difference is where asexual reproduction does all of the cloning in one step, sexual reproduction adds a step of mixing two halves before the final assembly of the offspring cell.

 

 

And another thing: if creatures indeed came crawling out of the sea, how would they do that? Why would evolution suddenly give legs to a fish? And there is a huge difference between breathing in water and out of it. And how did they evolve in mamals? A fish and a rat are completely different.

 

Evolution is NOT SUDDEN. This is the critical point you don't understand, evolution is a cumulative process where over long periods of time, natural selection causes small favorable changes to add up into large ones.

 

In the case of breathing air, all it takes is a fish that can survive in air a bit longer than the competition, and an environment where fish occasionally need to survive out of the water. For example, a fish that lives in pools in dry climates, where being able to make a short trip to a nearby pool with more water would be favored.

 

In the case of legs, it's even easier. Legs didn't just appear instantly, there was an entire range of inefficient legs that improving over time. In the case of the fish, all it takes is a situation where the fins might be used for movement on land. This is possible, but not very effective, and any variation that has fins that are better at it (more leg-like) would have an advantage. Continue the process long enough, and you get modern legs.

 

I do believe pieces of the theory of evolution are true, but it can't be we all just came out of one-celled organisms. It would be more reasonable to have a wider base, with multiple-celled organisms at the beginning as well.

 

No it would not. The transition to multiple cells is an important milestone, but not an impossible one. And getting to the point of multiple-celled organisms without evolution is essentially impossible if you don't go through single cells in the process.

 

This can be seen as a taunt, 'R-word arguments are banned, so let's discuss something that has to do with it...'

 

Of course it's a taunt. Some people believe that evolution can be disproved on scientific grounds alone, without bringing religion into it (see the transparent efforts of the intelligent design movement). These claims are obviously just a cover for other motivations, but that doesn't stop people from trying. My invitation is for those people (SickleYield is one of them) to prove their claims.

[FritzDerochebrune]

I'm not going to quote anything, would just be a lot of work for a post wich will be read once.

 

+ Ninja_666

-you said one celled organisms bonded together over hundreds of years in colonies to become one multiple-celled organism. Why would they do that? No predators.

-if prey-fish came out of rivers, then why are there hundreds of predators roaming the lands? Did those follow the prey? There are still enough fish in the sea (and rivers) to eat.

-look at this in the first post of the topic: "SickleYield, and likely other users of this forum, claims to have university-level degrees in biology and chemistry. Despite this, she believes (casting serious doubt on those supposed degrees) that the universe is between 6-10,000 years old, evolution fails to provide an explanation" that sounds like a debate between evolutionism and creationism to me.

 

+ Peregrine

- I would like to see why nature would make somethin more complex. Like said above, one celled organisms had no predators to be afraid of. Nature allways keeps it simple and balanced. That's why when people mess with it, stuff goes wrong.

-Sexual reproduction is also cloning? Cloning is only cloning when Subject B, cloned from Subject A, is completely identical to Subject A. It is true you get one half of DNA of your dad, and one of you mom, but that can't be called cloning.

-About the fish: so a fish who could survive in air a bit longer than others would evolve (after hundreds of years) into a amphibious being? A jumping fish never has solid ground under its fins, why would evolution grand it legs in stead of wings? Or did you talk about a fish who can survive a bit longer on land than others? Every fish on land dies. Some get lucky and a wave picks them up. But that would not set the process in motion to become amphibious creatures.

-And why is it impossible to have multiple-celled organisms without single-celled ones? If you say that, please give a good arguement. Now you're the one without argumentation with your statements.

-So you admit it is a taunt, and taunts are only to prevoke people. That is why you got those replies from people like hoots7. Unfortunatly, they where not the ones to get angry, but you where.

 

cya

 

Fritz

[Abramul]

@Fritz: If you found a company, remind me not to invest in it.

 

Actually, come to think of it, innovation isn't necessary for success, if you can copy others. But 'copying others' doesn't work in evolution...and competition is just as dangerous as predation.

[FritzDerochebrune]

@Fritz: If you found a company, remind me not to invest in it.

The only companies I'll found are those with soldiers and panzers in them. And you can't invest in them. In fact, they'll probably invest in other people themselves. In lead that is. Not in cash.

It's as the title of a level in a RTS game (can't remember wich one) goes: Crush. Kill. Destroy.

 

cya

 

Fritz