Stick Page Forums Archive

Biological Evolution: For or against and why

Started by: iRakodai | Replies: 101 | Views: 6,472

Fusion
Banned

Posts: 4,445
Joined: Aug 2008
Rep: 10

View Profile
Apr 16, 2012 1:02 AM #635830
Quote from iRakodai
Evolution itself is just conjecture. It cannot be proved by science, in fact, it is dis proven by observable science. Therefore, it is just philosophy. The reason it has lasted this long, is because there is only one alternative. Who wants to believe there is a God that governs what we do? You certainly don't.


No it isn't, and if you think it is, then you don't know what Evolution is.
Zed
2

Posts: 11,572
Joined: Feb 2009
Rep: 10

View Profile
Apr 16, 2012 5:53 AM #635921
Quote from iRakodai

Evolution itself is just conjecture. It cannot be proved by science, in fact, it is dis proven by observable science. Therefore, it is just philosophy. The reason it has lasted this long, is because there is only one alternative. Who wants to believe there is a God that governs what we do? You certainly don't.


Ahem.

Quote from Zed
You say that as though philosophy is for things we can't know and science is for things we can. If anything, the opposite is true. Philosophy is about finding incontrovertible facts based on pure reason whereas science is empirical and therefore uncertain.


If you keep talking shit about philosophy I'm gonna slap a trolling infraction on you, 'kay?


And because I'm getting tired of long posts I'll keep this brief:

You haven't addressed my zircon crystals.

Where did Noah get his koala bears?

Why did ichthyosaurs die out?



And why in the living fuck would you jump from "we can't explain this scientifically yet" to "it happened by magic"?
Exile
Administrator
2

Posts: 8,404
Joined: Dec 2005
Rep: 10

View Profile
Apr 16, 2012 12:25 PM #636014
Quote from iRakodai
Look, Exilement, I can provide pages and pages of data, and you can deny it all till your blue in the face. If its so tedious to respond, then just stop trying. The only reason to continue is to prove it to yourself because almost everyone else here already believes evolution


The main problem here is that you're doing nothing but posting other people's interpretations of data that you barely understand. You're not responding to my arguments, you're finding arguments that support your ideas and just copying and pasting them here. When I respond to them you just find another wall of text without actually addressing anything I say.

The reason this is becoming tedious is because when I do something like that, I get a response like this:

Quote from iRakodai
Please provide a link to some valid source where this has been verified by tests. As far as I remember, we have never actually witnessed that happen, they only think that happened


The worst of it is, what I posted has already been verified. It's a fact, and it directly contradicts what you were arguing. It was EXACTLY what you were asking for. You said, find proof that something was added to our genome in a way that provided a beneficial mutation. I provided exactly that, and then you gave this half-assed dismissal of it.

Nothing in that wall of text was even close to conclusive. It's conjecture. The overwhelming majority of geologists believe the coconino sandstone was created from desert winds, not a flood.

I really have no interest in debating with someone who actually believes "evolution itself is just conjecture" while readily holding views that contradict what we know to be true. I can't argue a point if you refuse to acknowledge when you're wrong. I'm not going to keep taking the time to form my own arguments if all you're going to do is ignore them, and then post someone else's arguments, without giving any reason for believing they're true in the first place. It's a waste of time.
Zed
2

Posts: 11,572
Joined: Feb 2009
Rep: 10

View Profile
Apr 16, 2012 12:50 PM #636022
Incidentally, iRakodai, going from your "the only alternative to evolution is God" statement, would a disproof of God count as a proof of evolution in your eyes? I'm sure you'd say that it can't be done and all, and I don't want everyone suddenly jumping into this thread with all their anti-religion stuff (banhammer on standby, folks), but just thinking hypothetically here.
Exile
Administrator
2

Posts: 8,404
Joined: Dec 2005
Rep: 10

View Profile
Apr 16, 2012 4:09 PM #636110
I don’t believe in evolution.

I can hear what you are thinking: Is he an idiot or something? Even though he has an MSc in animal ecology and an unfinished PhD in evolutionary ecology, he still doesn’t believe in evolution?!

But here’s the thing: evolution is a scientific theory, same as the theory of gravity, germ theory, cell theory, quantum theory, theory of relativity and many others.

Unlike religion, science doesn’t work with beliefs – you take the facts supporting the theory and compare those with facts not supporting the theory. Then you decide if the theory is correct – or perhaps you should improve the theory, choose an alternate theory or scrap the whole thing altogether.

And the theory of evolution has literally hundreds of thousands (if not millions) scientifically validated observations and experiments supporting it. You have scientific articles, monographs, experiments (yes, there are loads and loads of experiments on evolution), observations and so forth.

And now we take the facts not supporting or invalidating the theory of evolution… oh, wait. There aren’t any.

There is not a single observation or experiment that invalidates evolution. No fossil rabbits in Precambrian strata. No human footprints next to dinosaur footprints. No genetic data showing the synchronized bottleneck of Noah’s ark in all of the animal species. No radioactive dating results or anything else disproving the Cambrian explosion.

There simply is nothing. Or, like Richard Dawkins put it, “Today the theory of evolution is about as much open to doubt as the theory that the earth goes round the sun”.

So, I don’t believe in evolution. But I also don’t believe in the chair I’m sitting on right now. I can prove the latter exists by an empirical observations (looking and touching it) and testing (I sit down – if didn’t fall on the floor, the chair probably exists).

Evolution is a proven theory. And it does not require belief.


Just an interesting read.
iRakodai
2

Posts: 54
Joined: Mar 2012
Rep: 10

View Profile
Apr 18, 2012 8:40 PM #637421
Quote from Fusion
No it isn't, and if you think it is, then you don't know what Evolution is.


Then prove me wrong.
iRakodai
2

Posts: 54
Joined: Mar 2012
Rep: 10

View Profile
Apr 18, 2012 8:45 PM #637425
Zed, If you could disprove God, then I would be forced to look to science to find where we came from. Evolution doesn't just have theology against it though. There is lots of scientific reasons against it too. To argue against evolution, you can use science and religion. I know that you might not believe in God, so I have opted for science, despite the fact that science will never end a matter like this
iRakodai
2

Posts: 54
Joined: Mar 2012
Rep: 10

View Profile
Apr 18, 2012 8:55 PM #637429
Exilement, This is pitiful.
This basically is just saying "WE EVOLVED NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY!"
Your right, it is an interesting read. It shows how far from reality some evolutionists have fallen.

This is a scientific debate. Please take this childish mockery else where and present scientifically valid proof.
P.S. Comparing Evolution to gravity really isn't very impressive and its getting old.
Exile
Administrator
2

Posts: 8,404
Joined: Dec 2005
Rep: 10

View Profile
Apr 18, 2012 9:10 PM #637439
Quote from iRakodai
Dear Exilement,
The example you put is an example of adaptation. No new information was added to increase fitness, rather, a loss in DNA increased fitness. Evolution is all about creatures going from simple beings to complex beings through mutations that add new and useful information.


Again, you're asking for proof. Seriously? I've already presented you with "scientifically valid proof" and you completely dismissed it. If anything you're the one that's dismissing evolution "NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY!".
Fusion
Banned

Posts: 4,445
Joined: Aug 2008
Rep: 10

View Profile
Apr 18, 2012 9:41 PM #637450
Quote from iRakodai
Then prove me wrong.


Prove what wrong? "Disproven by observable science" is a horribly vague argument.

Quote from iRakodai
P.S. Comparing Evolution to gravity really isn't very impressive and its getting old.

But Gravity is a theory; you don't know if it works the same way everywhere in the universe. Have you gone to one of the planets orbiting Alpha Centauri, measured the effect of gravity, and then compared it to the measurements for earth to see if they match up the way they should? No, you haven't. And they might *not* work.
Exile
Administrator
2

Posts: 8,404
Joined: Dec 2005
Rep: 10

View Profile
Apr 19, 2012 12:10 AM #637534
Kinda hoping you were being sarcastic with that last paragraph.
Fusion
Banned

Posts: 4,445
Joined: Aug 2008
Rep: 10

View Profile
Apr 19, 2012 1:53 AM #637566
Why? It's a perfectly reasonable thing to say.
Javelin
2

Posts: 1,529
Joined: Feb 2010
Rep: 10

View Profile
Apr 19, 2012 4:28 AM #637615
The guy who made this thread is trolling right?

Quote from iRakodai
Zed,
For example, only two dogs were needed to give rise to all the dog species that exist today.


Isn't this evolution over a couple of thousand years?
En
2

Posts: 2,481
Joined: May 2009
Rep: 10

View Profile
Apr 19, 2012 5:02 AM #637637
iRakodai, you need to revise on your definitions.

Thats just natural selection. The dark colored moths existed the whole time, they just became more common.
And as far as our genetics, Cats have 90% of homologous genes with humans, 82% with dogs, 80% with cows, 69% with rats and 67% with mice, and Cows are 80% genetically similar to humans.


Evolution: Refers to cumulative change in the genetic material of a population over time.

Natural Selection: The action of selective agents on wild populations in the wild. Essentially this is what Evolution is based on.

The moths adapted to their environment through natural selection and their genepool in the end was altered as a result. This change is?

Another factor which greatly reduces the space requirements is the fact that the tremendous variety in species we see today did not exist in the days of Noah. Only the parent “kinds” of these species were required to be on board in order to repopulate the earth.5 For example, only two dogs were needed to give rise to all the dog species that exist today.

Specie: A group of organisms that have the capacity to mate and produce fertile offspring.
The dogs are still the same specie. Just because they look different does not mean they are a complete separate group. If you take the genes of a black man and mix it with an asian lady, this does not produce a new specie.

Also, structure your arguments in a way so people can CLEARLY know what your contention is. Not everyone wants to scan a list of words, 90% of which are just explanation, and try to deduce what you are saying.
Exile
Administrator
2

Posts: 8,404
Joined: Dec 2005
Rep: 10

View Profile
Apr 19, 2012 4:05 PM #637826
Quote from Javelin
Isn't this evolution over a couple of thousand years?


Yup. Same with this quote

Quote from iRakodai
Another factor which greatly reduces the space requirements is the fact that the tremendous variety in species we see today did not exist in the days of Noah.


I mean he's blatantly admitting that that evolution exists. I don't even know how to have a discussion with someone like this.
Website Version: 1.0.4
© 2025 Max Games. All rights reserved.