This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Evolution.
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
MyTie
We rule at our own discretion.
What I hear.
Post by
MyTie
Actually, I would greatly appreciate it if you did :D; I want to hear what every one thinks. And till now, I haven't seen any proof against evolution (If you know any forum In which I could debate this better then here, please tell me :D).
.... ok... but if someone gets heated or stupid, I'm throwing in the towel immediately.
The most persuasive arguement against evolution is the 'dead end' arguement. As the theory goes, all species randomly mutate in different directions, and the strongest of those species lives, and the weaker ones, because they are weaker and inferior die off. The problem is, we don't see any random mutations that are 'dead ends'. If they are random, then there would be some species that wouldn't make it because they are inferior, like, i dunno, a new monkey species with eyes on its feet, or something. The problem is, we are SO complex, there had to have been millions of dead ends in the random process of evolution in order to lead us to our bodies. We have yet to find any of these dead ends. If evolution is natural selection of random events, we are lacking any evidence of failed random events being naturally deselected. No fossiles of monkeys with eyes on thier feet.
It is very easy to dig up facts for and against, and arguements for and against on your own. I spent a few minutes on google and found
this
, and also
this debate
. I didn't read everything, so I don't necessarily say I'm agreeing with them.
Post by
Neffi
then there would be some species that wouldn't make it because they are inferior, like, i dunno, a new monkey species with eyes on its feet, or something
2 fundamental errors. First off, we don't randomly mutate left and right. Second, you lack a basic understanding of DNA if you think a monkey can just appear with an extra eye on its foot. Mutations generate subtle changes and adaptions, not instantaneous radical changes that create a new species in a matter of days (or even centuries).
The problem is, we are SO complex, there had to have been millions of dead ends in the random process of evolution in order to lead us to our bodies. We have yet to find any of these dead ends.
You burn them in your car every day. >99.9% of all living matter has returned to the earth in an entirely unrecognizable form. It's actually extremely rare that something lives on as a fossil. Not every being that ever walked is preserved.
And those dead ends? >99.9% of them die out before there's even enough present to leave a trace.
If evolution is natural selection of random events, we are lacking any evidence of failed random events being naturally deselected.
Actually, it's not entirely random. Mutation doesn't account for the full line of evolution. Enhancements of pre-existing features does.
The crucial thing you forget is, 4.5 billion is a srsly long time (lol). It's many times longer than what the human mind can fathom. So much time has been afforded that it's actually more of a wonder that were aren't even more complex (and if it weren't for mass extinctions and things like the Frozen Earth period, we would be).
It's also crucial to understand how exponents work. It isn't a coincidence that when dealing with exponents, you can generate large numbers in a matter of steps. Each new generation is larger than the last, making evolutionary development exponential.
2^2 = 4
2^3 = 8
2^4 = 16
2^5 = 32
2^6 = 64
...
2^20 = 1,048,576
Now apply that all the former generations can still be present and multiplying, and you can get even faster growth.
Post by
MyTie
So if evolution is not random, then what directs it?
Post by
Neffi
So if evolution is not random, then what directs it?
The slight bit of randomness, along with natural and sexual selection, and a set of natural rules to dictate how said changes can happen, as defined by the nature and structure of DNA.
Post by
MyTie
You're basing your arguement off of the structure and functions of DNA, which I don't know enough about to make a good arguement against.
I have a few questions for you though:
About how long has life been developing? Since the very beginning of earth?
About how many new species have developed?
Post by
Neffi
The problem people have it's that it's impossible for a human to truly fathom very large numbers or periods of time. But evolution started billions of years ago. That's seriously a *!@#load of time.
If you don't know what exponential growth is, I suggest you look into it. A nice simple diagram that'll give you enough of an understanding to continue is:
species 1
/ \
s2 s3
/ \ / \
s4 s5 s6 s7
/ \ / \ / \ | \
s8 s9 s10 s11 s12 s13 s14 s15
In only 4 generations, we have 15 units, if they multiply at a rate of 2 children per generation. The 5th generation would be a massive step up of 45. The one after that, 135. Exponential growth is a massive effect that can lead to massive results. Given a tiny start, like the single cell started by organic amino acids, and raw time to happen, exponential growth leads to so much diversity that it's absolutely mind-boggling.
It even explains the "explosions" of evolution, which creationists use to debate evolution as a natural occurrence. Each step gets so much bigger than the last, that you'd realistically see mini explosions of new creatures coming out left and right (relative to the size of the timeline).
Post by
Laihendi
Wait, so MyTie is trying to come off as smarter than everyone else, and yet be simply denies evolution? Hahahahah hahaha.... ha (nothing personal <3).
Post by
Neffi
You're basing your arguement off of the structure and functions of DNA, which I don't know enough about to make a good arguement against.
Therein lies the problem. You can't effectively argue something if you're totally ignorant about its integral nature. Denying evolution without a firm and thorough understanding of the structure of life is just stubbornness.
About how long has life been developing? Since the very beginning of earth?
It's debated. It's almost impossible to find traces of the most primitive forms of life (single celled organisms that don't even contain DNA yet).
About how many new species have developed?
It's impossible to know for sure, but it's certainly a massive number. But you also have to define species. A species can generate an adaption in fur color to blend in, but does that fur color make him an entirely new species? How solid of a change happens to make a species and species? Because we deal with only a single snapshot of evolution in our own lives, it's hard to define these things.
Post by
182246
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Wait, so MyTie is trying to come off as smarter than everyone else, and yet be simply denies evolution? Hahahahah hahaha.... ha (nothing personal <3).
I deny it with reason, but not based on his argument against. I have no idea how to counter his points yet. I'm willing to hear people out, learn thier points of view, take it with an open mind, and THEN point out my opinions. I don't 'simply deny' anything.
Post by
Neffi
But MyTie, you're missing the point. Reality isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact. You can't make faceless claims to anything without proof. That's the definition of science; a standard set of rules by which to study reality, create theories and subsequently gauge the strength of said theories.
Science isn't some evil force looking to overthrow religion. We're just looking for answers in a solid, provable way. Religion is by definition the anti-science not because it's by nature wrong, but because by nature it makes faceless claims without even attempt to back them up.
Accept your faith as you will, but denying things that go through rigorous tests to be
proven as part of the realm of reality
it just lunacy. Lunacy fed by ignorance, but lunacy nonetheless.
---
Things don't exist because you want them to exist. Humans don't define reality. Things are as they are and it's up to us to figure them out. Scientific advancement is the front of this process.
Post by
MyTie
I don't know enough about to make a good arguement against.
You can't effectively argue something if you're totally ignorant about its integral nature. Denying evolution without a firm and thorough understanding of the structure of life is just stubbornness.
Not knowing as much about DNA as you, and being totally ignorant are two separate things. I have reasons against evolution, but obviously haven't dived into DNA has hard as you. I am willing to learn though. Maybe I'm not as stubborn as you say I am?
About how long has life been developing? Since the very beginning of earth?
It's debated. It's almost impossible to find traces of the most primitive forms of life (single celled organisms that don't even contain DNA yet). The lack of evedence here sounds very fishy to me. This reminds me of Sigmund Freud, who's biggest controversy is that his theories are untestable.
About how many new species have developed?
It's impossible to know for sure, but it's certainly a massive number. But you also have to define species. A species can generate an adaption in fur color to blend in, but does that fur color make him an entirely new species? How solid of a change happens to make a species and species? Because we deal with only a single snapshot of evolution in our own lives, it's hard to define these things.
This I think is going to be my first base for offense against evolution. What I do know about math and exponential growth tells me that the number of species appearing right now, according to your theory, would have to be considerable. In the entire recorded history of man, we don't see any account of acutal evolution, or even our own genetic structure actually evolving, by studying the dead.
Post by
MyTie
But MyTie, you're missing the point. Reality isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact. You can't make faceless claims to anything without proof. That's the definition of science; a standard set of rules by which to study reality, create theories and subsequently gauge the strength of said theories.
Science isn't some evil force looking to overthrow religion. We're just looking for answers in a solid, provable way. Religion is by definition the anti-science not because it's by nature wrong, but because by nature it makes faceless claims without even attempt to back them up.
Accept your faith as you will, but denying things that go through rigorous tests to be
proven as part of the realm of reality
it just lunacy. Lunacy fed by ignorance, but lunacy nonetheless.
I'm not brining God, or my faith into this conversation. I am talking in terms of numbers and reason. But science, perfect science, doesn't truely exist. To deny that this subject is steeped in opinion would be irresponsible.
Post by
blademeld
2.
Also, natural selection, mind you, this is not evolution.
Post by
MyTie
Also, natural selection, mind you, this is not evolution.
Shhh.... I'm saving this for the right moment.
Post by
Neffi
I don't know enough about to make a good arguement against.
You can't effectively argue something if you're totally ignorant about its integral nature. Denying evolution without a firm and thorough understanding of the structure of life is just stubbornness.
Not knowing as much about DNA as you, and being totally ignorant are two separate things. I have reasons against evolution, but obviously haven't dived into DNA has hard as you. I am willing to learn though. Maybe I'm not as stubborn as you say I am?
DNA and the evolution of it is very, very delicate and complex. Without a thorough understanding, you might as well be fully ignorant.
About how long has life been developing? Since the very beginning of earth?
It's debated. It's almost impossible to find traces of the most primitive forms of life (single celled organisms that don't even contain DNA yet). The lack of evedence here sounds very fishy to me. This reminds me of Sigmund Freud, who's biggest controversy is that his theories are untestable.
Any less fishy than the lack of evidence on the religious end?
On a serious note, I didn't say there was no evidence. A chain can be built between the forms of life with enough strength and certainty to allow for basic prediction. If we understand how things develo, and we can see stage B, C, D, E, F, G, ..., and Z, then we can construct A to a very high degree of accuracy. We just can't say exactly when it started.
About how many new species have developed?
It's impossible to know for sure, but it's certainly a massive number. But you also have to define species. A species can generate an adaption in fur color to blend in, but does that fur color make him an entirely new species? How solid of a change happens to make a species and species? Because we deal with only a single snapshot of evolution in our own lives, it's hard to define these things.
This I think is going to be my first base for offense against evolution. What I do know about math and exponential growth tells me that the number of species appearing right now, according to your theory, would have to be considerable. In the entire recorded history of man, we don't see any account of acutal evolution, or even our own genetic structure actually evolving, by studying the dead.
It wouldn't be. Things happen over a very long span of time. Species don't pop up after a few days, or even a few generations. Understand subtlety.
Also Google "observed speciation".
If anything, the fact that it's hard to define species is proof of evolution. Things happen very gradually, not instantly. It's that reason that we can see the changes happening, and the reason we have to ask ourselves what defines a species.
Post by
Neffi
2.
Also, natural selection, mind you, this is not evolution.
Yes it is. If you recognize natural selection, then you recognize it can be responsible for creating changes, even small ones. Those changes are the front of evolution.
And don't even try to bring micro vs macro into this. If you accept micro-evolution (the development of sub-species from parent groups), then you accept macro-evolution, because it's nothing more than the process of micro-evolution over a larger time period.
Post by
Neffi
Also Google "observed speciation".
If you want a firm base in reality, look at the Liger, or corn. Both are man-made species generated by breeding. You can't seriously accept that it's possible to create new species, then deny that the effect can happen naturally. The proof is in front of you, if you care to take the time.
Post by
MyTie
DNA and the evolution of it is very, very delicate and complex. Without a thorough understanding, you might as well be fully ignorant.
This would be the first thing I have ever heard of that took an entire understanding of to even comment on. I'm sure that in order to fully understand it, I would have to understand it your way.
Any less fishy than the lack of evidence on the religious end?Because a counterpoint is as bad as a point is not proof of the point.
On a serious note, I didn't say there was no evidence. A chain can be built between the forms of life with enough strength and certainty to allow for basic prediction. If we understand how things develo, and we can see stage B, C, D, E, F, G, ..., and Z, then we can construct A to a very high degree of accuracy. We just can't say exactly when it started. This illustration would be more like. "B.... .... %.... X... Y... Z..." Therefore, we have
proved
what A looked like, and this is of course, not opinion.
If anything, the fact that it's hard to define species is proof of evolution. I'm not sure what you mean. Our lack of understanding the situation means that we can prove a theory about it?Things happen very gradually, not instantly. It's that reason that we can see the changes happening, and the reason we have to ask ourselves what defines a species. However gradual it does happen, there should be
some
change.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.