Evolution

[Duskrider]

Well, since certain "experts" insist on turning the homeschooling thread from a discussion of whether parents are qualified to teach science into whether evolution is correct, here's a nice clean thread for them to argue about it in. I will begin:

 

 

1) Evolution is a fact. Gene frequencies in gene pools change over time, producing changes in the phenotypic characteristics of the populations they produce. This is indisputable fact, backed up by vast amounts of empirical evidence from both the fossil record and direct observation and experiment.

 

 

2) The Theory of Evolution is the current best explanation for the mechanism that produces these changes. It is a spectacularly successful theory, with massive explanatory power. It generates extremely accurate predictions, and those predictions have been tested experimentally with complete success. There is absoutely no counter-evidence to disprove the theory. The theory is accepted by over 99% of biologists, and is the fundamental principle of all of modern biology. The "controversy" over evolution is exactly the same as the "controversy" over the theory that bacteria cause disease.

 

 

 

You may now embarass yourselves disagreeing. Please post exactly why the Theory of Evolution fails to explain the available evidence. And please keep in mind the fact that the Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory, not a religious belief. Any replacement you propose must contest the theory on scientific grounds, and must be a better scientific theory.

 

Besides being against the forum rules, religion is completely irrelevant to this debate. The Theory of Evolution neither attacks nor supports any religious belief, other than those religions that explicitly include "evolution is false" in their beliefs (often due to political reasons rather than theology). Many religious people accept the theory without compromising their religious beliefs, and plenty of atheists do not accept the theory. So keep religion out of it.

 

Also, please keep in mind that as much as you may hate me, I know this material very well. Unless you really want to embarass yourselves, I suggest taking the time to study the subject very carefully and be absolutely sure of your claims before posting them. Please understand what exactly the Theory of Evolution says, and just as importantly, what it does NOT say. Please also understand the concepts "fact", "theory", "hypothesis", and "law", and the requirements for each of those categories.

[freddycashmercury]

2) The Theory of Evolution is the current best explanation for the mechanism that produces these changes. It is a spectacularly successful theory, with massive explanatory power. It generates extremely accurate predictions, and those predictions have been tested experimentally with complete success. There is absoutely no counter-evidence to disprove the theory. The theory is accepted by over 99% of biologists, and is the fundamental principle of all of modern biology. The "controversy" over evolution is exactly the same as the "controversy" over the theory that bacteria cause disease.

 

You have not made any specific claims. Anyone could say, "Evolution is right because the experts say it is." this does not make it true. Arguing about such a general topic will not work. Why don't you back up you claims with some specific evidence?

 

I don't count your first point because everyone would agree that mutations occur in nature.

[ResidentWeevil2077]

I'm not gonna argue with you about about the validity of evolution, but since you're ignoring the fact that that's not the only thing anyone can learn, I will hound you until you see that your claims are disproved. If we forget about everything else (math, english, art, phys ed, social studies, the whole bit), and strictly concentrate on teaching the theory of evolution, what would we have? Single-minded robots who know nothing about anything else other than where we came from (or not, if the theory of evolution is indeed proven false - not saying it will be, but there is always the possibility).

[Duskrider]

I'm not gonna argue with you about about the validity of evolution, but since you're ignoring the fact that that's not the only thing anyone can learn, I will hound you until you see that your claims are disproved. If we forget about everything else (math, english, art, phys ed, social studies, the whole bit), and strictly concentrate on teaching the theory of evolution, what would we have? Single-minded robots who know nothing about anything else other than where we came from (or not, if the theory of evolution is indeed proven false - not saying it will be, but there is always the possibility).

 

This is just unbelievably stupid. Do you even know what a strawman is? Please tell me exactly (I want to see a direct quote) where I have ever said that the only thing we should teach is evolution.

 

When you fail to find a quote, I expect to see your apology. Until then, take your hijack out of my thread.

[freddycashmercury]

You have not made any specific claims. Anyone could say, "Evolution is right because the experts say it is." this does not make it true. Arguing about such a general topic will not work. Why don't you back up you claims with some specific evidence?

 

You want specific evidence? Buy a damn biology textbook, I am not your biology teacher. You made the claim that the currently accepted Theory of Evolution is false. Anyone who wishes to can take a few minutes with google and find everything they want to know about the existing theory.

 

Though fine, if you want specific evidence: http://www.talkorigins.org/ . Rather than posting thousands of pages of evidence, I'll let you read it yourself.

 

I don't count your first point because everyone would agree that mutations occur in nature.

 

 

Fine, I accept your concession.

 

 

This is exactly why I said "understand what the theory says and what it does not say". If you concede mutations, you essentially concede the whole debate. There are exactly two things you need to have evolution:

 

1) A self-replicating entity.

 

2) A small error rate in its copying method(s).

 

If you concede mutations, you grant me both of these requirements. Everything else about evolution follows inevitably from those two points.

 

I can link sites too, watch:Answers in Genesis.

 

Read that.

 

As for your second point, there is no reason to conclude that just because small mutations occur in nature they would lead to the huge change we have seen.

[Duskrider]

I can link sites too, watch:Answers in Genesis.

 

Thank you. I hoped you'd make it this easy for me. From their own site:

 

Answers in Genesis is an apologetics (i.e., Christianity-defending) ministry, dedicated to enabling Christians to defend their faith and to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively. We focus particularly on providing answers to questions surrounding the book of Genesis, as it is the most-attacked book of the Bible. We also desire to train others to develop a biblical worldview, and seek to expose the bankruptcy of evolutionary ideas, and its bedfellow, a “millions of years old” earth (and even older universe).

 

...

The Bible—the “history book of the universe”—provides a reliable, eye-witness account of the beginning of all things, and can be trusted to tell the truth in all areas it touches on.

 

 

Answers in Genesis (if you somehow couldn't figure it out from the title) is a religious group making religious arguments. I asked for scientific evidence, not theology. Please do not bring up AIG again, as religious debates are against forum rules.

 

 

As for your second point, there is no reason to conclude that just because small mutations occur in nature they would lead to the huge change we have seen.

 

This is exactly what I meant about "understand the theory". If you actually understood the math behind cumulative selection, you would not say something like this.

[freddycashmercury]

Sorry about that, I was distracted when I linked that. You're right.

 

This is exactly what I meant about "understand the theory". If you actually understood the math behind cumulative selection, you would not say something like this.

 

Perhaps you could explain it to me, oh Great Wise One? My understanding has always been that there is no evidence to support the HUGE leap between simple mutations and evolution.

 

Edit: I just got a great idea. Why don't we start with the Big Bang?

[Duskrider]

Perhaps you could explain it to me, oh Great Wise One? My understanding has always been that there is no evidence to support the HUGE leap between simple mutations and evolution.

 

Evolution is just the sum of lots of small mutations, over a long period of time. Natural selection makes this a non-random process, keeping the ones that work, and removing the ones that fail. So the beneficial mutations will accumulate at a rate MUCH higher than blind chance.

 

Edit: I just got a great idea. Why don't we start with the Big Bang?

 

Christmas comes early this year.... you really are making this easy for me. Allow me to quote myself:

 

Please understand what exactly the Theory of Evolution says, and just as importantly, what it does NOT say.

 

The Theory of Evolution says absolutely nothing about the Big Bang (or any other theory about the origin of the universe). The Theory of Evolution deals with changing frequencies of genes in gene pools (and their phenotypic effects on the populations they produce), nothing more. Please do not attempt to argue against some strawman of evolution.

[freddycashmercury]

All right, I have to go to bed, but I will say one thing: The Big Bang theory is relevant to this discussion because by disproving it I would prove that at least the world was created by a designer. As you have pointed out, this does not disprove the theory of evolution, but it does help my case for creationism.

[Duskrider]

All right, I have to go to bed, but I will say one thing: The Big Bang theory is relevant to this discussion because by disproving it I would prove that at least the world was created by a designer.

 

No you would not. This is a textbook false dillema fallacy. We do not have to pick between the Big Bang Theory and some kind of designer. It is perfectly possible for the Big Bang Theory to be replaced with a different scientific theory. Not that it is very likely that it will be replaced, the parts of it dealing with the universe after it formed are pretty solid. All that's left is that initial origin, and that would only add to it, not replace it.

 

As you have pointed out, this does not disprove the theory of evolution, but it does help my case for creationism.

 

No it does not. Even if you manage to provide a different explanation for the origin of the universe itself, you have done absolutely nothing to disprove evolution. The evidence supporting a universe/earth old enough for evolution to happen is staggeringly vast. Any theory that attempts to claim a young earth would involve overturning all of biology, and substantial parts of physics and chemistry. Really, you're more likely to prove that the earth is flat than you are to prove that the earth is too young for evolution to happen. And there is no other possible consequence of finding an alternate origin of the universe that could even attempt to any impact on evolution, the two things are completely independent.

 

This is why I told you to actually take the time to understand the theory you are arguing against.

 

 

(Fun with coordinate systems: it is not only possible to prove that the earth is flat, it is indisputable fact that the earth is flat. It is also indisputable fact that the earth (as well as the entire universe) revolves around me. Disagree at your own risk.)