Staredit Network > Forums > Serious Discussion > Topic: Evolution Discussion
Evolution Discussion
Feb 28 2011, 12:54 pm
By: Decency
Pages: 1 2 318 >
 

Feb 28 2011, 12:54 pm Decency Post #1



Referencing this as the starting point: http://www.staredit.net/topic/5391/7/#282712

Quote from Jack
Quote from name:FaZ-
Quote from Jack
[evolution] isn't good science
... "2. Be Reasonable. The world does not revolve around you and your opinions."

Saying evolution has little scientific backing is like saying the World Cup isn't very popular: you'd be demonstrably wrong and the only place people wouldn't immediately think you're a complete idiot is in the United States.
PM me and demonstrate how I'm wrong, please. Others are welcome to as well. I don't want to derail the topic, we can start another one if you want.


I figured I'd post our PM'ed discussion. If anyone wants to continue from his perspective or has critiques or extensions of the arguments from either side, feel free to contribute. I'm not sure if this will turn into serious discussion, I figured it would be best left here for now but some people might benefit from reading it.


Quote from name:FaZ-
I'd be happy to clear up any doubts you personally have about evolution, but I'm not doing your research for you. Find any scientific organization that makes any serious progress in biology or an evolutionarily related field and then find its view on evolution. There is more scientific consensus on the issue than virtually any other modern contested theory, except in the US where we have clueless religious figures telling people what to believe instead of asking them to find out for themselves.

The vast majority of scientists who speak out against the theory have no relevant publishings; this is essentially the definition of scientific consensus. If you'd like to provide a counterpoint to that, find a single study published in a scientific peer review journal that seriously attacks evolution. I'd be surprised if you can cite even a single one published in the past decade. Most often, the "PhD's" making the loud and completely unsubstantiated claims about how evolution is garbage or proven wrong have degrees in unrelated fields of study and certainly don't have any credentials in the field whatsoever to make the authoritative statements they do. But hey, their books sell well.

Quote from Jack
Quote
There is more scientific consensus on the issue than virtually any other modern contested theory
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html

I have yet to see any evidence of evolution. If the generally accepted theory of evolution as accepted by scientists is true, there should be hundreds, thousands, millions of transitional fossils. There are perhaps 100 on wikipedia, which are fairly debatable.

Keep in mind that I have a problem with macroevolution and evolution from a common ancestor. I have no problem with microevolution, as that agrees with the Bible and is scientifically provable.

Quote from name:FaZ-
You can't cite argument ad populum when statements are made by the people most knowledgeable in the field we're talking about. If a poll on Fox News asked "Do you believe in evolution?" and someone tries to say that's meaningful, that would be argument ad populum. When people at the highest level in their field speak about their subject, absolutely not - that is how we gain knowledge. Here are a vast number of scientific communities that explicitly reject intelligent design, all with cited quotes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_societies_rejecting_intelligent_design

You clearly don't understand how difficult the conditions are to form a fossil. Bones don't just last for millions of years, they decompose quickly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil#Rarity_of_fossils On top of that, transitional species are just that: transitional. They are between one stable species and another, usually due to a change in environment. In evolutionary terms, they don't last long. The only reason so many have been found is because we know these conditions and are actively searching in those areas.

Speciation events aren't exactly common but some have been observed recently. The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground_mosquito is the most well known of them, to me. Vestigial organs also make these events very clear. As for the last common ancestor, I can't really say what problem you might have, it's been pretty readily shown that such an ancestor is extremely likely; the alternative is essentially multiple abiogenisis events.

Any other questions, feel free, but saying you haven't seen any evidence of evolution just says to me that you aren't looking very hard.

Quote from Jack
BAH Lost my PM TWICE

Your argument is still ad populum: "Most scientists believe something, so it must be true". I want cold hard evidence, not hundreds of scientists saying "X is true because we all say it is true and we so pro so it must be true."

I don't know enough about fossils to argue with you about it; I'll have to do some research. From what I understood of the matter, there's enough fossils found of all the currently known species that there should also be many transitional fossils, but very few or no transitional fossils have been found.

As for vestigial organs: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090730-spleen-vestigial-organs.html
Basically, organs thought to be vestigial have been found to actually have uses. Just because we haven't worked out all the uses of all the vestigial organs doesn't mean a use doesn't exist. I'm surprised they still teach that vestigial organs are proof of evolution, I thought they debunked that and stopped using that argument a long time ago. Mind you, they still use those drawn pics of babies going through evolutionary cycles and stuff, even though that was proved to be rubbish a while ago...

Quote from name:FaZ-
The argument is not ad populum, scientists have provided support and evidence for their position in literally millions of peer reviewed journal articles. In them, you'll find the people most qualified to be discussing their field are discussing their field. That is quite literally the definition of argument from authority, the most important aspect of inductive reasoning. There has been no counterargument from authority that even remotely comes close to credibly attacking evolution or providing an alternative theory.

There is no "smoking gun" that's going to show that evolution is true to you, the simple fact is that all evidence that we've ever observed fits easily into our current understanding of evolution. I could compile arguments dozens of pages long and still have fresh material to go on for years, and I've only taken a couple of college level biology courses. Meanwhile, there are NO scientific arguments whatsoever in support of your position. You're arguing as if your religion, which by nature can't be shown to be untrue, has to be disproved before evolution can be believed: that is an impossible task and quite a silly position to take in a debate.

As for the link you gave, I don't think anyone knowledgeable would call the spleen a vestigial organ. The author of that article has no credible experience or degree in biology, going along with what I said earlier. Being able to live without it doesn't mean it's vestigial, you can live with one kidney for example or even without your entire lower half. There are far more clear examples of vestigial structures: hind legs in whales, for example, or the wings of birds that can neither fly nor swim. Have you had your wisdom teeth removed? The human jaw is smaller than the ape jaw, causing teeth to be crammed together. Have you ever had goosebumps? Humans are relatively hairless, so the goosebumps which in other species have kept animals warmer or made them more intimidating now do nothing. There are dozens of other examples of human vestigiality, and that's without even going into the DNA comparisons between species, which make phylogenetic trees incredibly easy to produce.

Quote
Mind you, they still use those drawn pics of babies going through evolutionary cycles and stuff, even though that was proved to be rubbish a while ago...
Scientists don't use anything remotely like this, people lying to you who want to discredit evolution do so. It's called a strawman argument and it's a widely used tool for convincing people of something that they already want to believe. When is the last time you listened to a scientist support evolution, rather than listening to someone who contests evolution describe the theory? It's blatant strawman and it's pathetic, this is why so many ignorant people think evolution means that one day two monkeys just gave birth to a human.


Quote from Jack
Quote
Scientists don't use anything remotely like this, people lying to you who want to discredit evolution do so. It's called a strawman argument and it's a widely used tool for convincing people of something that they already want to believe. When is the last time you listened to a scientist support evolution, rather than listening to someone who contests evolution describe the theory? It's blatant strawman and it's pathetic, this is why so many ignorant people think evolution means that one day two monkeys just gave birth to a human.
Actually, this thing about babies having gills and egg sacs and tails was posted in the Reader's Digest Book of Facts, and was also thought up by some prominent scientists. I'm told it's still printed in some science books, even though the scientific community at large has debunked and disagreed with it.

I can't be bothered arguing with you any more :P

Quote from name:FaZ-
What you're talking about is recapitulation theory. It was indeed developed by prominent scientists... over a hundred years ago. It was then shown to be untrue and only appears in biology textbooks today as evidence of competing theories at the time. As we learned more, we found data that didn't fit that model and thus the model was thrown out. I studied this in class and can scan the relevant pages of my textbook next time I'm home, if you'd like. The "Reader's Digest Book of Facts" is not a scientific journal, not peer reviewed, and I can assure you that no one even remotely knowledgeable about evolution was involved in that publishing.

Quote
I'm told it's still printed in some science books, even though the scientific community at large has debunked and disagreed with it.
You're told this, but you're too stubborn to intelligently consider that you're being lied to. If you spent 15 minutes and researched it for yourself, instead of being told what to believe, you'd find how absolutely absurd the discussion is. It is a blatant strawman argument, no credible evolutionary biologist has supported that position in nearly a hundred years.


Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Mar 2 2011, 5:04 pm by FaZ-.



None.

Feb 28 2011, 1:04 pm NicholasBeige Post #2



Ahem.
Quote from name:Cardinal
Quote from Jack
Quote from ClansAreForGays
Honest question: Is Jack allowed to just flippantly say things like "evolution is just a theory, and has little scientific backing" in serious discussion? Especially in a non-evolution based topic?
I used it as an example of a topic which many people would say is science and therefore use as evidence that faith and science are conflicting. As it isn't good science, it isn't proof of science and faith conflicting.

I don't see anything in the rules against that.
Quote from CaptainWill
To be honest, evolution is not a perfect concept (and indeed has been misappropriated and led to some pretty horrendous things) but it makes more sense than creationism.

Evolution WAS just a theory. Problem with 'evolution' is that whenever it gets tossed around in a buzzwordy fashion in topics relating to religion - most people think of it in its earliest form, ie. Darwinian. The concept of deep time was proposed decades before Darwin became interested in the subject, by a man called James Hutton (who pretty much created the school of Geology). It was the concept of the earths age, which undermined the credibility of the church (and other religious organisations). The bible say's the earth is 4,004 years old - why? because we added up all the ages of people since adam and... well, yeah, the earth is more than 4 and a half BILLION years old. This is what allowed Darwin to attribute a concept of incremental or gradual change in an organism. Sure, when he first published his works - most notably the Descent of Man - it was all speculation and theory, no hard science, no empirical proofs, no facts, nothing.

But it's 2011, and it is a proven fact that your genotype (genetic makeup/configuration) is all thanks to the chromosomes given to you by your parents - so your traits, your appearance, your mentality is all to a certain degree hard-coded into you at the moment of inception. How you live your life will therefore determine whether or not you get to pass on your genes to another generation and whether or not your genes are better blah blah blah.

This is true for all plants, all animals and us humans. In fact, for pretty much any living organism this is considered to be truth.




None.

Mar 1 2011, 2:13 am Decency Post #3



Quote
If anyone wants to continue from his perspective or has critiques or extensions of the arguments from either side, feel free to contribute. I'm not sure if this will turn into serious discussion, I figured it would be best left here for now but some people might benefit from reading it.




None.

Mar 1 2011, 3:14 am Raitaki Post #4



Quote from Centreri
I'm fine with "Goddidit", myself.
The "Goddidit" doesn't quite explain the fossils :hurr: Also the part about some guy (didn't bother to remember his name) stuffed one pair of every type of animal on the old Earth doesn't make sense, cuz 1) When a guy goes all over the world collecting all kinds of animal and makes a ship that can actually hold and sustain all of them, he means srs bsns. And bible ppl don't mean srs bsns, 2) Wait, so he forgot the hemophrodite (not sure if I spelled it rite) and asexual species? And 3) If a man goes great lengths to learn what every kind of animal eats, gather them and put the bunch of food onto a huge ass ship that he has to build almost alone, he's a dead man before he even finishes.
And no, don't give me the "God helped him".



None.

Mar 1 2011, 3:25 am Jack Post #5

>be faceless void >mfw I have no face

Quote from Raitaki
Quote from Centreri
I'm fine with "Goddidit", myself.
The "Goddidit" doesn't quite explain the fossils :hurr: Also the part about some guy (didn't bother to remember his name) stuffed one pair of every type of animal on the old Earth doesn't make sense, cuz 1) When a guy goes all over the world collecting all kinds of animal and makes a ship that can actually hold and sustain all of them, he means srs bsns. And bible ppl don't mean srs bsns, 2) Wait, so he forgot the hemophrodite (not sure if I spelled it rite) and asexual species? And 3) If a man goes great lengths to learn what every kind of animal eats, gather them and put the bunch of food onto a huge ass ship that he has to build almost alone, he's a dead man before he even finishes.
And no, don't give me the "God helped him".
How does it not explain fossils?

Bible people do mean srs bsns. No, he didn't forget any species. He wasn't almost alone, he had his family of sons to help. He also lived for a rather long time. And yes, God helped him, although God didn't make the ship magically appear.



Red classic.

"In short, their absurdities are so extreme that it is painful even to quote them."

Mar 1 2011, 3:33 am Raitaki Post #6



Quote from Jack
Quote from Raitaki
Quote from Centreri
I'm fine with "Goddidit", myself.
The "Goddidit" doesn't quite explain the fossils :hurr: Also the part about some guy (didn't bother to remember his name) stuffed one pair of every type of animal on the old Earth doesn't make sense, cuz 1) When a guy goes all over the world collecting all kinds of animal and makes a ship that can actually hold and sustain all of them, he means srs bsns. And bible ppl don't mean srs bsns, 2) Wait, so he forgot the hemophrodite (not sure if I spelled it rite) and asexual species? And 3) If a man goes great lengths to learn what every kind of animal eats, gather them and put the bunch of food onto a huge ass ship that he has to build almost alone, he's a dead man before he even finishes.
And no, don't give me the "God helped him".
How does it not explain fossils?

Bible people do mean srs bsns. No, he didn't forget any species. He wasn't almost alone, he had his family of sons to help. He also lived for a rather long time. And yes, God helped him, although God didn't make the ship magically appear.
You do know that it was a metaphorical way to say "IT'S FRIGGIN IMPOSSIBLE" rite. Even with today's number of specices, they are still far too many and far too widely dispersed for Noah (and his family) to round them up before he (and his family) to die of old age. And as I said, there's the matter of storing food for the animals, as I remember the flood to be long. And there's also nothing (GOD DOESN'T EXIST SO HE CAN'T DO SHIT HERE) to keep the animals from eating each other. And there's no mention of the fate of all the trees.

EDIT: The "Goddidit" didn't explain why the fossils were different from today's animals. And why fossils of the same kind of animals are too different from each other.



None.

Mar 1 2011, 3:45 am Decency Post #7



Quote
A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.

See if you can fit "goddidit" into that somewhere.



None.

Mar 1 2011, 3:49 am Raitaki Post #8



Quote from name:FaZ-
Quote
A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.

See if you can fit "goddidit" into that somewhere.
This exactly.



None.

Mar 1 2011, 3:56 am Raitaki Post #9



Quote from Centreri
Please give me something specific to focus on. I'm not a dog, to write paragraphs upon paragraphs detailing how every single word pertains to the theory of God.
Then start by telling us why several dogs suddenly up and wrote the bible shit to the first place. Oh, and explain where the dragons Jesus' family met while running from Herode came from, and why could God the Father not stop Jesus from killing/withering/cursing many people when he was young.



None.

Mar 1 2011, 9:17 am Jack Post #10

>be faceless void >mfw I have no face

Quote from Raitaki
Quote from Jack
Quote from Raitaki
Quote from Centreri
I'm fine with "Goddidit", myself.
The "Goddidit" doesn't quite explain the fossils :hurr: Also the part about some guy (didn't bother to remember his name) stuffed one pair of every type of animal on the old Earth doesn't make sense, cuz 1) When a guy goes all over the world collecting all kinds of animal and makes a ship that can actually hold and sustain all of them, he means srs bsns. And bible ppl don't mean srs bsns, 2) Wait, so he forgot the hemophrodite (not sure if I spelled it rite) and asexual species? And 3) If a man goes great lengths to learn what every kind of animal eats, gather them and put the bunch of food onto a huge ass ship that he has to build almost alone, he's a dead man before he even finishes.
And no, don't give me the "God helped him".
How does it not explain fossils?

Bible people do mean srs bsns. No, he didn't forget any species. He wasn't almost alone, he had his family of sons to help. He also lived for a rather long time. And yes, God helped him, although God didn't make the ship magically appear.
You do know that it was a metaphorical way to say "IT'S FRIGGIN IMPOSSIBLE" rite. Even with today's number of specices, they are still far too many and far too widely dispersed for Noah (and his family) to round them up before he (and his family) to die of old age. And as I said, there's the matter of storing food for the animals, as I remember the flood to be long. And there's also nothing (GOD DOESN'T EXIST SO HE CAN'T DO SHIT HERE) to keep the animals from eating each other. And there's no mention of the fate of all the trees.

EDIT: The "Goddidit" didn't explain why the fossils were different from today's animals. And why fossils of the same kind of animals are too different from each other.
But it is possible. You just need to be less close minded :P

There's been 6000 years for the animals to disperse, plus it is likely that the continents of the world were closer together in the past (As far as I know, this isn't a christian scientist idea, it's a generally agreed with possibility).

People have made fullscale models of the ark. It's been proved to be PLENTY big enough for all the animals (except for dinosaurs and water animals such as fish) AND all their food for 40 days.

If you were openminded enough to believe the possibility of God, then it's certainly possible for the animals to not eat each other. Plus, I expect the animals weren't all in one big space. They'd be in compartments to make caring for them easy.

Trees can survive underwater for 40 days easily.

Ever heard of extinction? Variation within a species? Ever noticed a chihuahua skeleton looks significantly different to a Great Dane's skeleton, yet they are the same species?



Red classic.

"In short, their absurdities are so extreme that it is painful even to quote them."

Mar 1 2011, 9:58 am NudeRaider Post #11

We can't explain the universe, just describe it; and we don't know whether our theories are true, we just know they're not wrong. >Harald Lesch

Lol. This topic now got more holes than a swiss cheese. Hail the mighty Centreri. And yes Faz-, you should've posted that in SD. For some reason people think putting up garbage arguments is fine in LD.

Quote from name:FaZ-
----> There's a deleted post of mine here. I can't access it due to the stupid inbox bug so unless Jack has it or a moderator can grab it it's probably gone. Feel free to edit the quote of me below this, Mods, since you can't PM me... =/
Mods can't access your PMs. And admins won't unless given serious justification. Maybe you can PM Devlin about it.




Mar 1 2011, 12:33 pm poison_us Post #12

Back* from the grave

Maybe, just maybe, God created a world with Evolution. I mean, there are stranger things.




Mar 1 2011, 6:52 pm MillenniumArmy Post #13



Quote from poison_us
Maybe, just maybe, God created a world with Evolution. I mean, there are stranger things.
Yes, evolution shaping people like you is indeed a strange thing ;)

No but really. I don't see what all this fuss is about evolution being the bane to religion. I mean scientists have already proven they can exist concomitantly http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1018_041018_science_religion.html Yes the article is a bit old but there are several more recent ones that say stuff similar to that



None.

Mar 1 2011, 7:29 pm poison_us Post #14

Back* from the grave

Quote from MillenniumArmy
No but really. I don't see what all this fuss is about evolution being the bane to religion. I mean scientists have already proven they can exist concomitantly http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1018_041018_science_religion.html Yes the article is a bit old but there are several more recent ones that say stuff similar to that
It's like organized religion rejecting homosexuality. Apparently God doesn't want everyone to be happy.





Mar 1 2011, 9:45 pm Jack Post #15

>be faceless void >mfw I have no face

Quote from poison_us
Quote from MillenniumArmy
No but really. I don't see what all this fuss is about evolution being the bane to religion. I mean scientists have already proven they can exist concomitantly http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1018_041018_science_religion.html Yes the article is a bit old but there are several more recent ones that say stuff similar to that
It's like organized religion rejecting homosexuality. Apparently God doesn't want everyone to be happy.
Homosexuality causes STDs/AIDS/HIV. I'd say He wants people to be healthy. Plus, how does homosexuality help the progression of the human race? :P Maybe that's a good example of devolution.



Red classic.

"In short, their absurdities are so extreme that it is painful even to quote them."

Mar 1 2011, 11:28 pm NudeRaider Post #16

We can't explain the universe, just describe it; and we don't know whether our theories are true, we just know they're not wrong. >Harald Lesch

Quote from Jack
Homosexuality causes STDs/AIDS/HIV.
You didn't just say that, right? Seriously, I hope for your own sake that you're just trolling because if not, you need to find someone to explain to you the facts of life. Badly.

Anyways, on that topic, homosexuality might even be a sign of evolution. I don't have numbers, but to me it looks like that the percentage of gays has increased quite a bit the last few decades. At the same time we're facing an increasingly bad over population. Maybe that's nature's way of dealing with it?




Mar 1 2011, 11:33 pm DevliN Post #17

OVERWATCH STATUS GO

I don't think the percentage of homosexuals has increased, just the number of people who feel comfortable openly admitting it.

Also I think Jack is saying that to make a point rather than actually believing it. I hope that's the case, at least.



\:devlin\: Currently Working On: \:devlin\:
My Overwatch addiction.

Mar 2 2011, 12:29 am Centreri Post #18

Relatively ancient and inactive

Explain to me, nuderaider, how the tendency for people to be homosexuals can be influenced by something as external and global as population.

At the same time, bring me back my fucking posts. Just because I don't believe that evolution isn't real doesn't mean that my arguments were invalid. And judging by what you just wrote about overpopulation causing homosexuality, you're in no position to judge the validity of arguments anyway.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Mar 2 2011, 1:09 am by Centreri.



None.

Mar 2 2011, 12:55 am ClansAreForGays Post #19



Quote from Centreri
Explain to me, nuderaider, how the tendency for people to be homosexuals can be influenced by something as external and global as population.

At the same time, bring me back my fucking posts. Just because I don't believe that evolution isn't real doesn't mean that my arguments were invalid.
Plants are releasing toxins in response to our over population, like in The Happening. Except they make us crave cock, instead of kill ourselves.




Mar 2 2011, 1:15 am Jack Post #20

>be faceless void >mfw I have no face

Quote from NudeRaider
Quote from Jack
Homosexuality causes STDs/AIDS/HIV.
You didn't just say that, right? Seriously, I hope for your own sake that you're just trolling because if not, you need to find someone to explain to you the facts of life. Badly.

trololo

Quote
Anyways, on that topic, homosexuality might even be a sign of evolution. I don't have numbers, but to me it looks like that the percentage of gays has increased quite a bit the last few decades. At the same time we're facing an increasingly bad over population. Maybe that's nature's way of dealing with it?
I'm not worried about over population. Ever heard of the green revolution? If that can happen once, it can happen again, and in other parts of the world.



Red classic.

"In short, their absurdities are so extreme that it is painful even to quote them."

Options
Pages: 1 2 318 >
  Back to forum
Please log in to reply to this topic or to report it.
Members in this topic: None.
[12:30 am]
ClansAreForGays -- When you join a pub lobby because you see 7/8 players, but then realize host is bating you with computers. :flamer: :flamer:
[11:48 pm]
O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- :wob:
[2024-10-30. : 6:24 pm]
Ultraviolet -- :wob:
[2024-10-29. : 4:33 pm]
Vrael -- :wob:
[2024-10-29. : 1:32 pm]
Zoan -- :wob:
[2024-10-28. : 5:21 pm]
Ultraviolet -- :wob:
[2024-10-27. : 4:34 pm]
jjf28 -- :wob:
[2024-10-27. : 9:01 am]
Zycorax -- :wob:
[2024-10-27. : 3:31 am]
RIVE -- :wob:
[2024-10-26. : 7:12 pm]
Ultraviolet -- :wob:
Please log in to shout.


Members Online: Roy