The debate "Evolution doesn't exist" was started by
July 10, 2019, 3:30 pm.
18 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 80 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
Light posted 23 arguments to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 22 arguments, JDAWG9693 posted 14 arguments, mwest0097 posted 2 arguments to the disagreers part.
Light, Deat, Repent_4_The_End_Is_Near, guchch, jrardin12 and 13 visitors agree.
JDAWG9693, ototoxic, Communistguy, MADHURA, BakitGalit, sssk, sk25, mwest0097, A, Nemiroff, Steelheart, suwani, jbusey, mtbtheboss, Sumit082, codyray16, Nero and 63 visitors disagree.
@light. any comment on the infinite regression of transitional steps fallacy?
had to go to the website instead of the app to post this link (since I cant seem to copy/paste in app any more). please read that article @light.
it should dispel alot of the confusion. all arguments made in it were already made here, but he puts it together in a more organized explanation.
I always think if the scene in the futurama episode where Professor Farnsworth lays out, like, 40 stages of human evolution and the other guy goes, 'but now there's this gap!' XD
"When I debate creationists, they present not one fact in favor of creation and instead demand "just one transitional fossil" that proves evolution. When I do offer evidence (for example, Ambulocetus natans, a transitional fossil between ancient land mammals and modern whales), they respond that there are now two gaps in the fossil record."
Also, even if it were important (which it is not) the criteria for organisms to fossilized are not as common as it seems you think they are.
Darwin did you mean. 150 years ago. Our understanding of evolution has changed a lot since then. Update your knowledge. We've provided reasons why he was wrong here
no serious biologist talks about transitional fossils. to repeat a previous post
we are a transitional species
all species are transitional species
I thought we covered this, you did not push back last time I set this record straight. I'm not sure if I left any vagueness here.
Even many pro evolutionists say there is a lack of these transitional fossils.
that is very far from an inevitability.
if you accept microevolutions, and we assume deep time, what keeps them from adding up into macro?
I'm willing to accept there is a chance however unlikely in an old Earth scenario.
shall we then agree that in a young earth scenario evolution is impossible, but in an old earth scenario it is inevitable.
I have heard that debate and from my understanding the word is used slightly differently in those contexts. Also there was the morning and evening that point to one singular day. The idea of the Sabbath came from the idea that God rested on the 7th day so that doesn't make sense if it was really eons.
The word "yom" is sometimes translated as: "time" (Gen 4:3, Is. 30:8); "year" (I Kings 1:1, 2 Chronicles 21:19, Amos 4:4); "age" (Gen 18:11, 24:1 and 47:28; Joshua 23:1 and 23:2); "always" (Deuteronomy 5:29, 6:24 and 14:23, and in 2 Chronicles 18:7); "season" (Genesis 40:4, Joshua 24:7, 2 Chronicles 15:3).
Yom relates to the concept of time. It's used to mean day so you can obviously find examples in the bible, but it is used for other meanings too because the Hebrew vocabulary was so limited.
Your young earth belief that opposes scientific consensus is literally founded on a belief that you have translated a single word correctly, even though another translation aligns with the scientific consensus
Yes their are many Old Earth Christians that interpret each day as eons this is called Gap Theory. However the bible uses several indicators such as the word day (24 hours) in the same way its used hundreds of other times as well as there was morning and there was evening. That compel me to believe they were literal days. The genealogies of the bible then give us about 6,000 years for the age of the Earth.
Why would you want someone to discard science? I'm just showing him there's an interpretation that doesn't require a young earth.
All of the claims of Genesis lack any evidence and many Christians interpret it as metaphorical. A young earth view shows he doesn't have that view and I'm trying to show him its not unreasonable. Yes there's problems with the journey to interpreting it as a metaphor but I have to talk to his established set of beliefs to debate properly or else I'm just talking past him.
He was trying to explain that the Bible doesn't necessarily propose the young earth hypothesis
@allrix, it doesn't seem very compelling that there were three long stretches of time where there was a formed Earth with continents and oceans before there were stars, including our sun.
If you find that compelling, why not discard science all together and go with the young Earth view?
The Bible doesn't necessarily point to a young earth. The 7 'days' can be interpreted as 7 'stretches of time'. This is especially compelling since the sun and stars weren't even created until the 4th stretch of time.
I will find the example when I have time but the point was the features appeared abruptly and together and thus couldn't have evolved one at a time over thousands of year. I know this is solely from an evangelical standpoint but I believe that the bible timeline points to an Earth younger than 10,000 years in which case evolution would not have the time needed for it to take place and is why I do not accept that evolution is true.
This isn't even worth debating at this point. The fact that evolution occurs is demonstrably true. it's observable, trackable, and measurable. There is enough evidence, all falsifiable and testable, from so many fields of science that all collaborate to support the same conclusion. Evolution occurs through the mechanism of natural selection. punctuated equilibrium explains why there are long periods where populations seem to change very little and periods where a lot of changes occur rapidly, correlating perfectly with periods of change in the environment that directly impact reproduction and survival rates of the species living there.
The micro vs macro debate is also silly. They are the same process over different amounts of time. Saying that blue can become more red over time but can never become purple is the exact same argument. or saying that seconds can pass but hours will never pass.
yes, giving examples of these organisms is much more effective in debate then keeping everyone in mystery and suspense.
furthermore, having things nowhere found in nature is not at all anti evolution. those first lobe finned fish had wrists that at the time were nowhere found in nature, that doesnt make it an astronomically difficult change, just different.
10 individual characteristics evolved over how many eons is not that many. seems quite reasonable. the fact that life adapts to every environment is actually further proof strengthening evolution. adaptability is its hallmark.
Examples? And, even if true that doesn't disprove the theory of evolution, it at best shows that we so not yet fully understand it.
That is a good point and would work if not for the discovery of organisms that don't have just one or two changes but over ten individual characteristics that are found nowhere else in nature.
that is a good question. in response I have as several points.
have you ever heard of amphibians? they are an in between form. the lobe finned fishes were the first proto amphibians, with the only.major changes being the wrist, and the ability to hold their breath. nothing too unbelievable.
the first fossil that showed evidence of these minor changes was called tiktaalik, and if you Google it you will see a bunch of fancy cgi rendering, but if you Google tiktaalik fossil, it will show you the actual remains the findings are based on.
in fact, I would say the entire amphibian kingdom is a "transitional" phase from fish to lizard. meanwhile the lizard is also kinda inept and is a transition to mammals.
to finalize me answer, not all features needed to happen at once. the proto amphibians did not need to suddenly survive only on land, just to be able to visit the land longer and longer. there is a whole category of amphibious fish (like mudskippers) who seem to be in a similar process today.
The problem with the fin to hand isn't just the fin to hand its the fact that so many changes would have to take place at once for the organism to still function.
I know we don't like outsourcing, but Viced Rhino just posted a really good video on YouTube explaining bigger modifications in evolution and how it works and how we've observed it if that will help you understand, @Light; if you have the time
so in other words, the bones are already on there. everything else around it is soft and easier to modify. change the skin texture to something more water proof. adjust the muscles accordingly, and done.
what is so different from a fin to a hand? assuming a boney fin, it has the exact same bone structure as. 1 thick bone in the upper arm/fin, 2 thinner bones in the lower arm/fin, then a bunch of bones together (wrist), followed by the phalanges.
it's not actually boney fins, but something called lobe finned fish. those are the ones believed to have evolved into amphibians (and then us) due to them having suspiciously similar bone structures in their front limbs. particularly the wrist.
yeah, 100s. maybe 1000s.
how long would it take for an animal to get alittle bigger or smaller? (like the various size dogs)
how long would it take for ears to be alittle pointier? better at gathering sound?
how about legs to get alittle longer?
doesnt it seem like we are getting some serious change adding up. within 10,000 years, you can have various canines split. not like different dogs that are all the same species but more like dogs vs wolves, that are so different they cant even breed together anymore.
now let's add another 10,000 years, with another whole SET of changes. and another 10,000, and another until we get to 100,000 years. I can see something splitting even more differently. like felines from canines.
now let's add another 100,000 years, with another 10 SETS of changes. keep going to 1 million years and I can see a horse like animal changing their neck big time, some hoofs, teeth, and become a giraffee. to be honest, the canine/feline split more accurately fits here in the millions of years.
if we go to 10 or 20 or even 100 million years ago, these changes do not stop adding up.
I think he's talking about, like, the moths during the industrial age. Which is a prime example of natural selection
based on our discussions, how long would it take for fur color to change? approximately? 100s of years? 1000s? 10,000s?
yes but more major mutations are required for a species to change completely a agree with small mutations such as the change of fur color to blend in with the environment but not complete changes to the species. Also another reason for why we have so many more problems is the weakening in the magnetic field of Earth.
You've said you agree with natural selection but you keep making points that reject it. Most mutations are bad? Yes. But if all mutations were bad then natural selection could not function. The diversity within canines and felines is proof that fit mutations are selectived for.
That's why so many more diseases, specifically genetic diseases, are prevalent now because we save people and don't allow evolution to take it's second step.
Not that that's necessarily a bad thing, but it's a thing.
sorry, correction: *it is true far more are bad then good.
however, step 2 resolves that with the prompt elimination of any bad. it may take a while for a good feature to spread amongst an already successful population, but it doesn't take long to weed out a bad feature, no matter how many pop up.
most mutations are neutral, like a new or split eye color. they are neither for worse nor better.
it is true that far more are good then bad, but that's where step 2 comes in, selection of good ones, elimination of bad ones.
The problems with the idea that mutations improve though is that mutations are usually for the worse not the better.
so far I think we've been able to counter any issue you have had with evolution. that is because evolution is simple, and explains everything with it's simple, 2 part premise. random mutation, non random selection. x a heck of a lot.
1. mutations have been observed. just keep adding microevolutions on top of each other til it becomes macro. its assumes old earth, but we can discuss that seperately. Assuming old earth, this is not only logical, it is inevitable. I hope we agree.
2. selection is even more obvious. if you suck, you die. if it works, you live and spread. theres no fancy science here. do you agree?
3. rinse and repeat until evolution. it is inevitable given imperfectly replicating life, and time.
I am no engineer either, but I can assure you adding distortion to a system does not improve its efficiency.
certainly, a quirky and mysterious God can explain literally any scenario (which doesn't help its case imo), but you know what else explains that fluid in the eye? its underwater origins in the cambrian explosion as explained by evolution and demonstrated by fossil records.
the chronological increase in complexity? could be God, but could also be evolution.
the branching tree of increasing similarity. could be God, could be evolution.
fundamental universal similarities such as DNA, sugar metabolism, cell components, etc. again, could be God, but evolution explains it quite well too.
so. do we go with the answer that literally can explain any scenario, including logical and illogical ones? or the answer that seems to perfectly and simply fit right into this scenario with minimal effort? by occam's razor the choice is clear. if there is a creator, this is his blueprint. or at least a part of it. we may not be able to understand God, but that doesnt mean we shouldnt try to understand his creation. is that a sin?
I'm not an expert but is it possible that that was simply the most efficient way for the eye to function. Also I don't know why God does everything he does. If I did then I would be God and he would not.
you criticize evolution from every angle, but make no attempts to defend your view against contrary evidence.
why would a creator make land animal eyes filled with liquid with the exact light bending properties as sea water? a design flaw in a perfect design?
Darwin himself first came up with this idea. it was an incomplete theory as he had no idea how these changes could be passed on, genetics was a mostly unknown field.
the same goes for newton. his genius uncovered the strength of gravity between 2 objects, but he had no idea how gravity actually worked!
scientists are not priests, prophets, or disciples. they are men. they are confined to the knowledge and technology of their time. later generations build on their discoveries. just because the father of evolution said we lacked something does not mean we continue to lack it now. he simply noticed a process, he could not explain its methods. later generations filled in his blanks with their own research.
saying some guy from 200 years ago didnt know something therefore we cant know it now is fallacious. we know alot more now then we did 200 years ago.
humans are apes
you are a transitional form
all forms are transitional
all forms are complete organisms
which of these statements is confusing you?
So their are maybe a few transitional fossils that you claim proves evolution is true but their should be more of these than complete complex organisms but there aren't. All we really have are complete organisms not tons of half human half apes. I disagree I am not a transitional fossil I am a human being made after the image of God.
Technically, we're all transitional species. That aside, lungfish is the first species that comes to mind for huge changes that we can witness. And, I don't personally know the names of the transitional fossils, but you can do a Google search just as easily as I can. Also, Viced Rhino is a good YouTuber who talks about this kinda stuff (evolution and such).
Also, we do not revere Darwin as the one true evolutionist. He was a very smart guy, buy we still criticize his work. He was wrong about a lot of stuff and we have corrected him. Science is not a dogma like your religion; we criticize everything. I don't care who said it, I care about what was said and the truth value of that claim.
Then where are the transitional fossils that show this even Darwin admitted to a lack of these and they still have yet to be found.
Given enough time, small changes make big changes.
Natural selection can have extremely small alterations in a species but it cannot completely change the species as evolution claims.
Natural selection is a big part of evolution, yes. Natural selection and random mutation instigate evolution. Do you think differently? If so, please explain
Does my comment make you think I'm arguing they're the same thing?
Are you arguing that natural selection and evolution are the same thing?w
Ravens and crows are another good example. A raven will never birth a crow, but it's too obvious that they're closely related.
why would an eye created for a land animal have the same refraction index (light bending) as sea water? doesnt that seem nonsensical?
this is not direct evidence, but the logic behind a creator choosing this is baffling. in my opinion, this is one of the clearest evidences for evolution. using evolution, and the fact that complex life first evolved underwater, this result is obvious.
evolution is the only explanation that simply explains EVERYTHING that we have found at the same time.
Existing species don't turn into each other. Maybe pokemon has confused you? The 'evolution' in pokemon is an example of metamorphosis, not evolution.
Evolution is chaotic. Small random mutations happen after conception. On average each human has 60 new mutations their parents don't have, which is fewer than other animals. If those mutations are beneficial or lucky they will diffuse through a small population quickly, or a large population slowly.
Mutations are often imperceptible between parents and children. But, after millions of mutations across thousands of generations massive behavioural and physical differences are observable. Once these differences are large enough we say it's a different species.
A species may not change at all if its population is massive, and everyone is breeding equally before dying. That's almost where humanity is at right now.
Another good way of looking at it to understand better is if you look at the taxonomic ranks of any two beings, eventually they will share a rank and that is where they diverged. For example, a lion and a housecat are both felidae which is the Family rank, but that's where they diverge into pantherinae for the big cats and filinae for small cats on the sub-family rank. That's where their common ancestor was in their historic lineage. And, even before that felines and canines share the Order rank of Carnivora. But, a cat will never become a dog. Cats and dogs share a great great x1000 ancestor.
What you just said shows you have no idea about evolution. Which, to clarify, is not an attack, but you should make sure you have knowledge on a subject before you speak on it.
No, a dog will NEVER become a cat. However, dogs and cats do share a common ancestor that eventually became each of them, just as the lion and housecat share a common ancestor. The longer period of time, the higher up the taxonomic rank the beings will differ.
I will never become my brother, but we share a common ancestor (our mother). Him and i are very similar in so many ways and, yet, are clearly distinct.
That is a better analogy for evolution.
I'd say yes within that family such as the original dogs on Noah's ark becoming what we know of as a wolf and the domestic dog. But not a dog becoming a cat or vise versa.
Lions and house cats are different species, though. Feline is not a species, it's higher up on the classification list. So, if you agree with that example, you just admitted that an ancestor species can become several new species.
I dont see the difference as being that vast. similar proportion just bigger. to contrast we have dogs, who within a blink of an eye went from wolf to something as tiny as a chihuahua and as big as a mastiff. I could overestimate and say this happened over only 1 or 2 10,000s. but most dog breeds are only a few hundred years old, like the poodle. if natural change can happen that fast with alittle influence, over the 55 million years since cats and dogs split, many things are possible.
how can your article say that no new forms have to being after the cambrian explosion when the cambrian was just fish and crustaceans? birds, mammals, reptiles, every animal on land and air came after the cambrian. and of course they have no fossil ancestors. they were the first animals with hard shells that could leave fossils. were you expecting an infinite regression?
I agree you can find vast differences wouldn't you agree there are large differences between a lion and a housecat. The point is they are still a cat even if through natural selection they've adapted and become vastly different.
Here is a website explaining how the Cambrian explosion doesn't fit into the evolutionary picture.
another way to explain this (assuming an old earth explanation) is
you take a group of cats. one day a massive flood happens in their area and separates the cats into 2 populations that can no longer reach each other to interact. then "micro"evolution (not an actual thing but I believe you understand what I'm saying with it) begins to make small changes. one group or cats finds an easy food supply during the day, becomes less nocturnal, its eyes adjust more for daytime. sneaking isnt as useful for daytime so it builds up a stronger body. etc.
the other group of cats remain nocturnal, slim down more to add to their stealth. eyes continue to adjust for nighttime hunting. etc. this will take let's say 50,000 years (or about 2000 generations at 30 years lifelimit). that's alot of changes. enough for them to be unable to interbreed. but there is no logical reason for mutations to stop, evolution continues.
in 100,000 years, you get double as many changes. 200,000 years 4x. etc. eventually the microevolution will add up and the 2 groups will be barely recognizable by 50 million years. (100x the original changes). maybe some of them will even start to glide like flying squirrels, and given more time, develop actual flight. that all depends on their environment.
It still doesn't solve the problem that the vast majority of changes are unhelpful and thus would be weeded out.
dolphins have lungs. amphibians are also an interesting study.
this explanation may not hold in a young earth scenario, but given time....
it takes 10,000s of years for speciation to occur naturally. that is a drop in the bucket. 55 million years is when dogs and cats split from a common ancestor. compared to fish vs birds, dogs vs cats are nearly identical. fur covered 4 legged animals with primary smell, then hearing, then sight, who both eat meat. same shape, similar size, completely different personalities. 55 million years is far more then 10,000. for more fundamental changes, like fish to amphibian to reptile to bird, takes 100s of millions of years.
but even then, are they really that different. all vertebrates are extremely similar. mouth to anus with 4 limbs of sorts (fins, wings, arms). all limbs have the same configuration (1 big bone in the upper arm/wing/fin, 2 smaller bones in the forearm, many bones in the wrist, 5 sets of phalanges). as different as they are, they are almost identical if you really look.
you would have to go all the way back to cephalopods or older to see trully unique organisms, and they split near the beginning.
So I agree with you somewhat. I don't disagree that natural selection exists and that adaptations within a species don't exist. I do however disagree on the fact that an entire species could change into another such as a fish into a bird. This is because most changes are for the worst such as if a fish developed lungs it would die on not be able to reproduce.
is it not possible that God, seeking the most perfect form for life in an imperfect ever changing world, understood that the best answer is a form that can endlessly adapt to its situation? why is it impossible to imagine that God worked through evolution?
small changes is a term for individual species lines. many lines can go through these changed simultaneously. in fact they all do. 55m
we frequently have "explosions of speciations" after a mass extinction due to the sudden opening of so many survival opportunities. in the case of the cambrian, there was no mass extinction because these were the first large lifeforms, so all their opportunities were just as unfilled.
after every opportunity (or ecological niche) is filled, rather then evolving wide varieties of different forms, competition widdles those forms down to only the most efficient ones. but after a mass extinction, or before life has filled these niches, rather then competition it is an open field for diversification.
just a note, this "explosion" is understood to have taken 55million years.
So if it has continual small changes how do you explain the Cambrian explosion where complex organisms appear seemingly out of nowhere.
there are no "stages". evolution is an analog process with constant small changes always happening.
this reminds me of a futurama episode where they demanded the missing link between ape and man. the professor said "austropithecaus". then the other guy said "aha, but what about between austropithecaus and man", the professor said "neanderthal". the other guy said "aha, what about between neanderthal and man!", the professor said another hominid. the screen then faded out and returned with a chart of about 15 in between species, but one can always ask for another in between any or all of them". there are infinite "transitional fossils". evolution doesnt have stages. just continual change.
What I mean by transitional fossils are the ones that show organisms in the in between stages all we have are complete complex organisms. Also just because I believe in a young Earth doesn't discredit things such as the Cambrian explosion it just means I believe they happened much more recently.
all fossils are transitional fossils. I dont understand. what you asking for.
The cambrian explosion is perfectly in line with evolution. if you believe in the earth being younger then 10,000 years old you said in another thread, why do you even believe in a cambrian explosion? that was hundreds of millions of years ago.
If evolution exists then why do we have the Cambrian explosion with complex fossils appearing out of nowhere. Why is there a lack of transitional fossils.
evolution is the only answer that explains everything we've seen so far. including the many failures.
how does creationism explain that the fluid in our eyes has almost the exact same refraction ratio as sea water? wouldnt it be logical to say our eyes evolved underwater?