Devon Gibbons Posted May 2, 2015 Posted May 2, 2015 I was wondering what sort of evidence existed or purported to show that evolution was invalid. I have heard that there are some sort of compelling arguments against it and was just curious if anyone had studied the creationists side ver much. I'd be really interested in hearing what they / you got. holla back
Donnadogsoth Posted May 3, 2015 Posted May 3, 2015 I was wondering what sort of evidence existed or purported to show that evolution was invalid. I have heard that there are some sort of compelling arguments against it and was just curious if anyone had studied the creationists side ver much. I'd be really interested in hearing what they / you got. holla back Not a student of Creationism, but there are a few arguments. Take redwood trees, for example. These things live thousands of years. How could that have evolved? The time between generations is so huge, even geologic time doesn't seem long enough to allow it. Here is an inexhaustible source of Creationist arguments. 1 1
WasatchMan Posted May 3, 2015 Posted May 3, 2015 Well, you heard wrong my friend. The only possible way there is evidence for creationism is if you accept that the creator made reality look like creationism is false as a test of peoples faith. All you have to do is look out at the night sky to prove that the universe is older than 6000 years given that we can see stars more than 6000 light years away and much greater than that.
Alan C. Posted May 3, 2015 Posted May 3, 2015 Take redwood trees, for example. These things live thousands of years. How could that have evolved? The time between generations is so huge, even geologic time doesn't seem long enough to allow it. Simultaneous trials rather than sequential trials. Trees which might've been similar to redwoods, but slightly different and not as robust or adaptive, did not survive, leaving behind the redwoods that you see today.
Pepin Posted May 3, 2015 Posted May 3, 2015 It is now pretty impossible to argue for creationism given modern physics and the size of the universe. What you'd have to prove is that self-replicating molecules that replicate with some very small error rate could never form due to circumstance. According to physics and chemistry, self-replicating molecules with small error rates are very possible. Dust crystals actually make a good example, not only of something the fits the definition, but as a possible candidate for how life first started out. The dust of course became something else, but there is a whole theory detailing how natural selection could have occurred with dust on earth. Though the chance of such molecule forming is extremely low, and the chance of the molecule having any long term success in its replication is also extremely low, with the known size of the universe we'd still expect it to happen quite a lot. On a whole, it almost never happens, but life has probably formed millions of times across the cosmos. Where people go wrong is in pointing out gaps of knowledge in science and evolution. This is silly because the scientific method is based around gaps in knowledge. You hypothesize because you don't know. You test because you want to know. You change belief based on empiricism because of tests. So long as a field hasn't found everything there is to know about a subject, there will always be gaps.
Better Future Posted May 4, 2015 Posted May 4, 2015 Dust crystals actually make a good example, not only of something the fits the definition, but as a possible candidate for how life first started out. The dust of course became something else, but there is a whole theory detailing how natural selection could have occurred with dust on earth. Well, that is actually evidence for creationism because God made humans out of dust. Here is a nice big list of creationist claims and answers to them. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
tasmlab Posted May 5, 2015 Posted May 5, 2015 Not a student of Creationism, but there are a few arguments. Take redwood trees, for example. These things live thousands of years. How could that have evolved? The time between generations is so huge, even geologic time doesn't seem long enough to allow it. Here is an inexhaustible source of Creationist arguments. I don't think a redwood needs to die before another is born. I'm just guessing, but a 10 year old one could probably muster a pine cone or two.
Robofox42 Posted May 11, 2015 Posted May 11, 2015 From wikipedia Sequoioideae (redwoods) is an ancient taxon. The first Sequoioideae, Sequoia jeholensis, was discovered in Jurassic deposits.[8] The fossil record shows a massive expansion of range in the Cretaceous and dominance of the Arcto-Tertiary flora, especially in northern latitudes. Genera of Sequoioideae were found in the Arctic Circle, Europe, North America, and throughout Asia and Japan.[9] A general cooling trend beginning in the late Eocene and Oligocene reduced the northern ranges of the Sequoioideae, as did subsequent ice ages.[10] Evolutionary adaptations to ancient environments persist in all three species despite changing climate, distribution, and associated flora. Especially the specific demands of their reproduction ecology ultimately forced each of the species into refugial ranges where they could survive, but still only in a vulnerable state. So let's see, jurassic ancestors which were about 150 - 200 million years ago. To be conservative, 150 million years ago. Now currently, they tend to live about 500 to 2000 year old. Let's be conservative and assume that lifespan is 2000 years and that all their ancestors lived 2000 years as well. Also assume that they only reproduce at the end of their lifecycle which is a rather absurd assumption. That still allows for 150 million / 2000 = 75 thousand generations. 75,000 generations seems like plenty of time for things to evolve. People tend to underestimate how long of timespans we are talking about. 1000 year old tree is only 20 times longer than the lifespan of humans and many animals. I don't see how this is evidence against evolution. Going through creationist arguments is exhausting. Like the redwood tree example above, almost all of them are geared toward scientifically uninformed audiences. Arguments that have been refuted many times are still used over and over again because the audiences of creationist arguments rarely bother to go looking for the refutation. It is exhausting because it takes time to explain the fundamentals of evolution to people in order to counter the arguments and most creationists are not interested in learning about evolution. They just want an easy way to dismiss it. Combine this with the Dunning-Kruger effect and it gets very frustrating. 1
Jer Posted May 14, 2015 Posted May 14, 2015 The Atheist Experience is a show that talks about creationism a lot https://www.youtube.com/user/TheAtheistExperience They frequently reference this site as the FAQ of creationism BS http://talkorigins.org/
Lalilulelo Posted June 2, 2015 Posted June 2, 2015 First, contrary to what Bill Nye and the rest of them dogmatic science guys repeat 10 times a day, Darwinian evolution is irrelevant to scientific inquiry and the human experience: no one ever needed to believe in evolutionism in order to make a discovery or to be a decent human being. And there is no basis in evolution for an objective framework of ethics, like the one Stefan champions. Second, there is no solid theoretical or experimental model supporting spontaneous generation (fancily called: abiogenesis). Furthermore, mutation as neo-Darwinism's main creative and divesifying mechanism is a very inadequate explanation, especially knowing: almost all mutations are corrected (less than one in a million is not, even lesser depending on the correcting system); there is no inter-specific fluidity and interaction of genetic material since mating gametes have specific recognition systems; mutations occurring due to external factors usually happen away from germ cells and thus are not heritable; a new beneficial mutation (rare thing) in the germinal tissues of eggs won't get the chance to be exposed to natural selection until the next or after-the-next generation; the list goes on and on... Consider the above with the number of generations poster Robofox42 speaks of (75000). Knowing that complex organisms such as the aforementioned longevous trees with unique functional genetic arrangements featuring tens if not hundreds of millions of DNA bases: the hard truth is it is impossible for these things to evolve in 75000 generations, particularly through no identifiable mechanisms (since mutations don't qualify; they are as mentioned above chaotic and rare, even more so those that go through natural selection successfully to fit into an operational living system). Personally, I will consider believing in this Darwinian pseudo-science when I find in it actual models rather than incoherent and fantastic speculation. It is unfortunate that in many countries this dogma is being forcibly taught, with little or no counter-argumentation ever being introduced, at places of indoctrination that society now proudly refers to as public secular schools. As since the dawn of times, some people think they've emancipated their minds, when the actual case is anything but... 2 5
jughead Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 I'm not aware of any evidence in favour of biblical creation as such, but i have heard some compelling arguments against Darwinian evolution. Following are what I've found to be the strongest: Fossil record - evolution based on small changes over a long period of time should result in a fossil record showing smooth transitions between species. Instead what we see are fully formed species appearing suddenly on the scene without transitional types. No evidence for "favourable" mutations - Nobody argues against the idea that natural selection will cause those traits that are best suited to the current environment to flourish and multiply through a population, such as the example of the pepper moth, but that doesn't explain how those traits emerged in the first place. Mutations are invariably harmful to the organism, not beneficial. Complexity - It is hard to imagine how something as complex and specialized as the human eye to have evolved from entirely random processes, regardless of how much time you allow, especially given that some of the intermediary stages would likely not have provided the organism any immediate benefits on which natural selection could be applied. These are some of the reasons I've always had trouble accepting Darwinian evolution as the cause of biodiversity. I would like to point out that I am no biologist so I welcome to any corrections that the learned FDR community can provide. 1
WasatchMan Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 Fossil record - evolution based on small changes over a long period of time should result in a fossil record showing smooth transitions between species. Instead what we see are fully formed species appearing suddenly on the scene without transitional types. The fossil record is limited because it is extremely rare for fossils to form. People who spend their lives in the field as scientists do not think there is a problem with the fossil record. 2. No evidence for "favourable" mutations - Nobody argues against the idea that natural selection will cause those traits that are best suited to the current environment to flourish and multiply through a population, such as the example of the pepper moth, but that doesn't explain how those traits emerged in the first place. Mutations are invariably harmful to the organism, not beneficial. See Canis lupus familiaris (aka dogs) 3. Complexity - It is hard to imagine how something as complex and specialized as the human eye to have evolved from entirely random processes, regardless of how much time you allow, especially given that some of the intermediary stages would likely not have provided the organism any immediate benefits on which natural selection could be applied. Its hard to imagine something as complex as on all powerful omnipotent being creating and running a universe where he a created a species after his own image, on one spec of dust on the outer edge of 1 out of 100s of billions of galaxies. Especially given that there is no evidence for this. 2 1
shirgall Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 Fossil record - evolution based on small changes over a long period of time should result in a fossil record showing smooth transitions between species. Instead what we see are fully formed species appearing suddenly on the scene without transitional types. The funny thing about reductio ad absurdum is that no matter what transitions are discovered, you have created two more zones where transitions have not been discovered. "Missing links" have been found repeatedly, and creationists just move the goalposts.
Ray H. Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 RE: the eye: "especially given that some of the intermediary stages would likely not have provided the organism any immediate benefits on which natural selection could be applied." I'm not sure why you say this is a given. What stage of optical improvement wouldn't lead to a survival advantage?
jughead Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 Its hard to imagine something as complex as on all powerful omnipotent being creating and running a universe where he a created a species after his own image, on one spec of dust on the outer edge of 1 out of 100s of billions of galaxies. Especially given that there is no evidence for this. Agreed, and I'm certainly not arguing that. I just find the mechanism for evolution as currently understood to be unsatisfactory. RE: the eye: "especially given that some of the intermediary stages would likely not have provided the organism any immediate benefits on which natural selection could be applied." I'm not sure why you say this is a given. What stage of optical improvement wouldn't lead to a survival advantage? My understanding is that the eye could not have evolved in a nice simple "straight line" of improvement, that many of the supporting structures such as blood supply etc. would have to be in place before the beneficial parts, which does not support the natural selection hypothesis. 3
Ray H. Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 There are many intermediate forms of light-sensing tissues and organs throughout the animal kingdom. The "leap" from one to the next is not that hard to fathom over the course of over 3.5 billion (>3,500,000,000) years. In fact, the eye has developed in several evolutionary lines independently. Molluscs, insects, and vertebrates each have a separate path to the modern eye.
WasatchMan Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 Agreed, and I'm certainly not arguing that. I just find the mechanism for evolution as currently understood to be unsatisfactory. Natural Selection via evolution is the best explanation/model that the human species has been able to construct. If you wish to overthrow it, you have a mountain of evidence to explain. If you are whetted to the idea that we have it wrong, you have a lot to overcome. However, give it your best, if you think that science has it wrong, we can only benefit from continued scientific exploration into this topic. 2 1
Lalilulelo Posted June 11, 2015 Posted June 11, 2015 I'm sorry, but I can only see arguments from fallacies here: - Darwinism is true because Science (underlined and in bold) and We couldn't be wrong - Darwinism is true because Biblical creationism is so riddled with inconsistencies - Darwinism is true because it is hard to imagine an omnipotent being creating and running the show As to "the mountain of evidence" in favour of the evolutionary development of the eye or any part of the body for that matter, how about sharing it here? If a mountain is too much, then by all means only share the strongest most compelling argument. Speaking of the eye, I watched a few episodes of Cosmos the other day, and many times I found myself annoyed by Neil deGrasse Tyson's dogmatism in what is supposed to be a scientific and educational program, as he piled up the classic fantastic claims that he presents as facts, for example he says: Until a few hundred million years passed, and then, one day, there was a microscopic copying error in the DNA of a bacterium.This random mutation gave that microbe a protein molecule that absorbed sunlight.Want to know what the world looked like to a light-sensitive bacterium? Take a look at the right side of the screen.Mutations continued to occur at random, as they always do in any population of living things.Another mutation caused a dark bacterium to flee intense light.What is going on here? Night and day.Those bacteria that could tell light from dark had a decisive advantage over the ones that couldn't.Why? Because the daytime brought harsh, ultraviolet light that damages DNA.The sensitive bacteria fled the intense light to safely exchange their DNA in the dark.They survived in greater numbers than the bacteria that stayed at the surface.Over time, those light-sensitive proteins became concentrated in a pigment spot on the more advanced, one-celled organism. How does that make sense? How is it scientific at all? 1/ he previously concedes that the origin of the cell remains the biggest mystery out there 2/ that doesn't stop him from skipping right to the cell and to that lucky mutation confering to a protein the ability to absorb light 3/ then he finds another mutation that complements the former mutation and recognises night and day [i didn't know you could do that with one mutation!] 3/ doesn't think it necessary to mention how this protein would be deactivated in order to be sensitive to light at the next moment 4/ doesn't think it necessary to mention which cellular structures will detect that a molecular change has occured in this protein 5/ doesn't think it necessary to mention which cellular structures could convert this change into a signal 6/ doesn't think it necessary to mention which cellular structures have the capacity to interpret signals [you don't need actual functional structures, you just need a mutation!] 7/ doesn't think it necessary to mention what super cellular structures have the ability to measure and compare the intensity of these signals in order to know where there is more light and where there is less light (so the cell could flee away from the surface) 8/ doesn't think it necessary to mention what structures could memorise the day and night cycle 9/ doesn't think it necessary to mention how all of this could be translated to effect accordingly the trajectory of the cell (provided it has already found the lucky mutations (!) that make it mobile enough to cross significant distances through day/night cycles or away from the surface) ... So not only is the origin of life a mystery to Neil deGrasse, all of the steps above and more are too, and he either doesn't want to think about them or just takes it all on faith. Like I said before, I have heard such accounts on the evolution of life too many times, from Neil deGrasse, my old lecturers, colleagues, and lots of esteemed scientists who are irreproachable in their fields. But until what they believe in is backed by credible theoretical models or experimentation, it remains nothing but fantastic speculation affirmed with the authority of dogma. /end post about widely advertised manipulative tv program
WasatchMan Posted June 11, 2015 Posted June 11, 2015 I'm sorry, but I can only see arguments from fallacies here: - Darwinism is true because Science (underlined and in bold) and We couldn't be wrong - Darwinism is true because Biblical creationism is so riddled with inconsistencies - Darwinism is true because it is hard to imagine an omnipotent being creating and running the show Hmmmm... I didn't make any of those arguments.. seems like you are attempting to strawman. - Darwinism is true because Science (underlined and in bold) and We couldn't be wrong I said it was the best explanation, using science, which is a method of documenting evidence found in reality (sorry you don't understand what science means - and are willing to conflate it with faith). Saying something is the best explanation for something because it is the most consistent theory using the scientific method is not a fallacious statement, it is a truth statement. - Darwinism is true because Biblical creationism is so riddled with inconsistencies I didn't say that creationism was wrong because of inconsistencies, I said they have a lot to explain (like why we so many stars in the night sky - for just one). - Darwinism is true because it is hard to imagine an omnipotent being creating and running the show I used "it is hard to imagine" as a parody of the person I was replying to saying "It is hard to imagine how something as complex and specialized as the human eye to have evolved from entirely random processes...", showing that it was a fallacious way to argue... context matters....
Alan C. Posted June 11, 2015 Posted June 11, 2015 Fossil record - evolution based on small changes over a long period of time should result in a fossil record showing smooth transitions between species. Instead what we see are fully formed species appearing suddenly on the scene without transitional types. No evidence for "favourable" mutations - Nobody argues against the idea that natural selection will cause those traits that are best suited to the current environment to flourish and multiply through a population, such as the example of the pepper moth, but that doesn't explain how those traits emerged in the first place. Mutations are invariably harmful to the organism, not beneficial. Complexity - It is hard to imagine how something as complex and specialized as the human eye to have evolved from entirely random processes, regardless of how much time you allow, especially given that some of the intermediary stages would likely not have provided the organism any immediate benefits on which natural selection could be applied. We don't only see fully formed species appearing suddenly in the fossil record. There are millions of transitional fossils. Every organism is a potential transition. Why one would expect to see fossils appearing in sequence like cells in a movie reel defies reason. Who says that mutations are harmful to organisms? When organisms reproduce, they don't create exact copies. If an organism produces offspring with a slightly lighter or darker fleshtone, or slightly longer or shorter limbs, how is that harmful? The human eye didn't form from 'entirely random processes.' Can we bury that canard already? The formation of the eye is well understood, so it's not hard to imagine how it formed.
AncapFTW Posted June 11, 2015 Posted June 11, 2015 Look up "AronRa" on youtube and watch his videos. He's actually a biologist that deals with how humans evolved, including the eye. 1
Lalilulelo Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 Hmmmm... I didn't make any of those arguments.. seems like you are attempting to strawman. - Darwinism is true because Science (underlined and in bold) and We couldn't be wrong I said it was the best explanation, using science, which is a method of documenting evidence found in reality (sorry you don't understand what science means - and are willing to conflate it with faith). Saying something is the best explanation for something because it is the most consistent theory using the scientific method is not a fallacious statement, it is a truth statement. - Darwinism is true because Biblical creationism is so riddled with inconsistencies I didn't say that creationism was wrong because of inconsistencies, I said they have a lot to explain (like why we so many stars in the night sky - for just one). - Darwinism is true because it is hard to imagine an omnipotent being creating and running the show I used "it is hard to imagine" as a parody of the person I was replying to saying "It is hard to imagine how something as complex and specialized as the human eye to have evolved from entirely random processes...", showing that it was a fallacious way to argue... context matters.... Hm ok, I'll try to provide a comprehensive reply. Surely if you take the liberty to parody someone's words then you have no problem with your own getting paraphased. But just to be clear, I read the entirety of the postings. I listed the points I thought are fallacious in a topic asking for evidence. I didn't say they are WasatchMan's fallacies. In fact, I didn't remember who said what as I read everything submitted in this topic, but in this post I'll quote them rather than try to sum them up, restate or "parody" them (oh wait, I suppose I can do the latter). * After checking, I can now say it was you that was arguing from authority as you replied with the following: "People who spend their lives in the field as scientists do not think there is a problem with the fossil record." "Natural Selection via evolution is the best explanation/model that the human species has been able to construct. If you wish to overthrow it, you have a mountain of evidence to explain. If you are whetted to the idea that we have it wrong, you have a lot to overcome. However, give it your best, if you think that science has it wrong, we can only benefit from continued scientific exploration into this topic." * I can also say it was you who brought up Biblical creationism. Rather than address what was presented as potential evidence from the redwood tree against evolution, you chose to focus on the ideology of people who would present it. What you came up with is, well, another classic fallacy (who wants to talk about a tree when they could talk about young earth creationism). The following is what you wrote: "Well, you heard wrong my friend. The only possible way there is evidence for creationism is if you accept that the creator made reality look like creationism is false as a test of peoples faith. "All you have to do is look out at the night sky to prove that the universe is older than 6000 years given that we can see stars more than 6000 light years away and much greater than that." * As to the last fallacy I listed, I agree that just because someone can't imagine evolution occuring doesn't mean it's not possible. However the user you were replying to clearly wasn't basing the validity of his ideas on his capacity for imagination. This is what he actually put forward: "Complexity - It is hard to imagine how something as complex and specialized as the human eye to have evolved from entirely random processes, regardless of how much time you allow, especially given that some of the intermediary stages would likely not have provided the organism any immediate benefits on which natural selection could be applied." One could easily see that he's trying to provide an actual line of argumentation: random processes -> intermediary stages that natural selection can't act upon -> no complex and specialised organ. The phrase "it is hard to imagine" can be understood in this case as interchangeable with something like "it is very unlikely". Your "parody" in response to him would have been perfect if he were presenting a fallacious argument; the truth however is he wasn't. It is therefore your reply that is genuinely fallacious and, once again, one that can't do without Biblical creationism: "Its hard to imagine something as complex as on all powerful omnipotent being creating and running a universe where he a created a species after his own image, on one spec of dust on the outer edge of 1 out of 100s of billions of galaxies. Especially given that there is no evidence for this." The last sentence I just quoted emphasises the fallaciousness of your arguments: one can't doubt the efficiency of posited mechanisms for evolution, because of Biblical creationism! which has no evidence for an omnipotent being creating a species after his image! [once again, this last bit is not something you actually said - it is just an innocuous attempt at parody] So there it is. Initially I didn't know who came up with those fallacies, but now I do. Here they are explained and backed up with your words, not with my attempts to paraphrase you or to use statements that could be likened to a strawman. Hopefully any lack of accuracy in my attempt to restate some of the points is now removed. Also, I hope that wasn't too long a read. PS: No need for name-calling. Glad you removed that.
Lalilulelo Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 What is Darwinism? http://www.thefreedictionary.com/darwinism
GuzzyBone Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 I am going to get involved here and try to inject some common sense toward the major fallacy I see in Darwin's "Theory of Evolution".This won't get peer-reviewed, because I'm not a scientist. I do not speak the language of Scientists and I have not heavily researched the theory, it's modern revisions, nor all of the applications of the theory in how life on Earth evolved to where it is today. However I am a person who sees a major error in this catch-all theory."Random Mutation"... my my my this is a convenient little net."Natural Selection happens because of this, this, and this, and if anything contradicts this model, well that's just RANDOM!"Random is defined as without cause/reason/method/pattern, but this is really a fancy man-made way of shrugging your shoulders and saying "I don't know why it happens, how it happens, or what will happen"."I don't know" should never be accepted as a valid scientific hypothesis or explanation for anything.Random is not found anywhere in nature or life. We create the illusion of random, but this is usually within a set of fixed values or subject to any number of internal or external force/variables.For example a 6-sided Dice creates the illusion of a random result, but this dice does not roll by itself. There is cause, effect, and reason why a fixed result between 1-6 is achieved after building a cube, applying numbers to it's faces, and then subjecting it to physical forces like Inertia, Gravity, and Airflow. The result is not Random at all, but merely it "seems" random enough to us because we can't exactly predict the result with precision.Lacking the evidence to explain why or how something occurs does not constitute proof, evidence, or even the suggestion that it is Random (without cause/reason/method/pattern). It is a simple, well understood and observable fact that all things happen for reasons (whether we know those reasons at the time or not), that all things are subject to the cause & effect of internal/external forces and variables, even when these forces are invisible to the naked eye.This tacked on hypothesis of "Random Mutation" is what I call a Bandage Theory. Something that is tacked onto a flawed theory in attempt to obscure, conceal, or dismiss any contradictions or holes in the original theory. It's a child's way of saying "I'm right, and if you prove I'm wrong, well I am always right"We deride a "Conspiracy Theorist" who will provide a Bandage Theory for every inconsistency or flaw in his/her claims, but we accept it at face value when Scientists turn around and do the exact same thing. This is dogmatic and the exact same behavior that Athiests accuse of religous groups.Where is Darwin's proof or evidence to the claim that mutation occurs at random and isn't following a set pattern?This is a convenient and unsupported claim when you can't actually prove that anything happens at random, because 'lack of evidence' does not constitute proof of anything.I cannot say that "Bigfoot definitely exists, because you can't prove he doesn't exist", this would be fallacious. The correct thing to say is... "I don't know if Bigfoot exists. I have never seen a Bigfoot, but I also have not seen much evidence either way. The testimony and witness of fellow man does count for something, so MAYBE Bigfoot exists, but I personally cannot legitimately say either way with any degree of objective authenticity."When it comes down to Random (Darwinism) vs. Pattern (Intelligent Design). Pattern has the heavy weight of evidence on it's side, because cause/pattern/method/reason is found everywhere in nature and nothing can ever be proven to be without cause/pattern/method/reason.Whether you want to accept this or not, at least one side is not saying "I know for certain that it is Random, purely because I can't figure it out".My entire argument: Any Scientific Theory that proposes "Random" as a viable explanation or hypothesis should be ridiculed for laziness, lack of desire to pursue answers, and dramatically revised.Lastly, this topic should be about the legitimacy of "Intelligent Design", not "Creationism". Creationism is the strict and literal conflation of the historical with astrological/symbolic allegory and fable, in order to form a narrative of humanity's past. This whole interpretation of religious allegory and texts as a strictly-literal science textbook is a very new and irrational phenomenon within religious groups....because when The Bible says that a sword came out of Jesus's mouth, it totally means that an actual physical sword came out of his mouth [sarcasm] *facepalm*Intelligent Design has major cases and new developments in the fields of Quantum Physics and Christian Science and is outright dismissed by majority bias in the establishment of "Big Science". Intelligent Design is not the same as Creationist theory, where they take Genesis and turn it into a literal and precise timeline. 4
jughead Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 I want to make my own position clear. I'm not a creationist and have no religious beliefs whatsoever. I simply have always had doubts about the theory of evolution and have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation. That certainly doesn't imply that the theory is incorrect as I readily acknowledge that I'm not a scientist, let alone a biologist. What I see in this discussion from many of you (though not all) is the same dogmatism that religious people are rightly accused of, very similar to the climate change debate. I truly doubt that most of you really understand the theory of evolution but because scientists say it's true then you're ready to act as if it's completely certain and that anyone who disagrees is a fool. I would suggest a little more humility may be in order if all you have at your disposal are appeals to authority.
Alan C. Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 http://www.thefreedictionary.com/darwinism Thanks for clarifying. I asked because sometimes people define Darwinism as 'monkeys changing into humans.' According to The Free Dictionary, Darwinism is defined as, "A theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms have developed from other species, primarily through natural selection." That's essentially correct. As populations of organisms expand over time, they fill niches as variances in offspring produce adaptations to thresholds in the environment. Examples include varying skin tones, coarseness of hides, thicker coats of fur, thicker layers of blubber, longer limbs, honed acuity of senses, resilience to changes in temperature, ability to digest organisms which past generations could not, etc. - Darwinism is true because Science (underlined and in bold) and We couldn't be wrong - Darwinism is true because Biblical creationism is so riddled with inconsistencies - Darwinism is true because it is hard to imagine an omnipotent being creating and running the show Darwinism is true because that's what the evidence tells us. Intelligent Design commits the Watchmaker Fallacy (a false analogy) by asserting that purposeful design in complex, manmade things implies a purposeful desinger in complex, natural things.
WasatchMan Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 Hm ok, I'll try to provide a comprehensive reply. Surely if you take the liberty to parody someone's words then you have no problem with your own getting paraphased. But just to be clear, I read the entirety of the postings. I listed the points I thought are fallacious in a topic asking for evidence. I didn't say they are WasatchMan's fallacies. In fact, I didn't remember who said what as I read everything submitted in this topic, but in this post I'll quote them rather than try to sum them up, restate or "parody" them (oh wait, I suppose I can do the latter). So the parody was in response to someones fallacy. I think you are trying to act like the word parody itself is somehow an argument against me. The point of the parody was to show it was not an argument, because it can just as easily be turned back the other way. So for you to say I was making a fallacy is wrong because I wasn't making an argument for or against creationism, I was making an argument showing the original argument was fallacious through analogy. This is why I say context matters, and am for some reason having to say it again. As for me responding to arguments not addressed towards me but about my arguments... I am a real person, I know what my arguments were, so when I see someone addressing my arguments and not directing it at me I can't pretend that they weren't counter arguments towards arguments I originated (especially when they even try to attack my style of underlining a word). Sorry. * After checking, I can now say it was you that was arguing from authority as you replied with the following: "People who spend their lives in the field as scientists do not think there is a problem with the fossil record." "Natural Selection via evolution is the best explanation/model that the human species has been able to construct. If you wish to overthrow it, you have a mountain of evidence to explain. If you are whetted to the idea that we have it wrong, you have a lot to overcome. However, give it your best, if you think that science has it wrong, we can only benefit from continued scientific exploration into this topic." The first one could be considered an argument from authority... but whatever, strike it out if you wish, it is true to say that people who study it don't think that there is a problem with the fossil record. I don't see why there would a problem with making that statement. It is not iron clad, but it is pretty good. The second one definitely is not an argument from authority. That statement is true, and in the language that science would use. * After checking, I can now say it was you that was arguing from authority as you replied with the following: "People who spend their lives in the field as scientists do not think there is a problem with the fossil record." "Natural Selection via evolution is the best explanation/model that the human species has been able to construct. If you wish to overthrow it, you have a mountain of evidence to explain. If you are whetted to the idea that we have it wrong, you have a lot to overcome. However, give it your best, if you think that science has it wrong, we can only benefit from continued scientific exploration into this topic." I am not sure where creationism and biblical creationism differ. I guess the OP could have defined what he was talking about better. The OP had not brought up tree ring data at the time, and the one below him wasn't shown yet, and even if it was it is not my job to address every single point anyone makes on this thread, I was addressing the question of the OP... Anyway, the point of bringing up tree ring data is that the earth is younger than we think, and I provided a quick way that anyone can verify without going and cutting their own redwood trees down and counting the rings. I don't see why I have to address something that as convoluted as redwood tree ring data, when anyone can look up in the night sky, see stars billions of light years away, understand that the speed of light is constant, and deduct that the universe is at billions of years old. Our galaxy is 110 million light years across, and we can see all of that. This is not a "classic fallacy" * As to the last fallacy I listed, I agree that just because someone can't imagine evolution occuring doesn't mean it's not possible. However the user you were replying to clearly wasn't basing the validity of his ideas on his capacity for imagination. This is what he actually put forward: "Complexity - It is hard to imagine how something as complex and specialized as the human eye to have evolved from entirely random processes, regardless of how much time you allow, especially given that some of the intermediary stages would likely not have provided the organism any immediate benefits on which natural selection could be applied." One could easily see that he's trying to provide an actual line of argumentation: random processes -> intermediary stages that natural selection can't act upon -> no complex and specialised organ. The phrase "it is hard to imagine" can be understood in this case as interchangeable with something like "it is very unlikely". Your "parody" in response to him would have been perfect if he were presenting a fallacious argument; the truth however is he wasn't. It is therefore your reply that is genuinely fallacious and, once again, one that can't do without Biblical creationism: "Its hard to imagine something as complex as on all powerful omnipotent being creating and running a universe where he a created a species after his own image, on one spec of dust on the outer edge of 1 out of 100s of billions of galaxies. Especially given that there is no evidence for this." The theory of evolution explains complexity. It is not random, it is survival of the best traits. Being able to see is a good trait for survival, hence it exists. As I have said, "Natural Selection via evolution is the best explanation/model that the human species has been able to construct. If you wish to overthrow it, you have a mountain of evidence to explain. If you are whetted to the idea that we have it wrong, you have a lot to overcome. However, give it your best, if you think that science has it wrong, we can only benefit from continued scientific exploration into this topic." What this statement means is that evolution is the most consistent model with the best explanatory capability for the diversity of species that we see. You are coming in and trying to poke holes in the most complex parts of a huge theory, but if you really wanted to overthrow it you would have to develop a competing theory with the explanatory power of evolution, not just complain that you think that eyes are "hard to imagine" or "very unlikely". This is nitpicking at its finest. PS: No need for name-calling. Glad you removed that. I wasn't name calling. I realized you weren't the one that made the "I can't imagine" argument so you were not a hypocrite. If you had made that argument, and then told me I was being fallacious for turning it around on you, you would have been a hypocrite. I saw my error and corrected it.
Ray H. Posted June 13, 2015 Posted June 13, 2015 Guzzybone, Mutations are thought to be random in the sense that they occur without regard to their cost or benefit. They are produced without direction. Copy mutations and chemical/radioactive mutations have no intent. They aren't a response to environmental pressures. They just happen and the mutations are either beneficial, detrimental, or null. That's what is meant by random. It's not that scientists don't understand how they come about. They do. The copy and repair mechanisms in the cell aren't perfect and make mistakes. The resulting mutations are then, possibly, acted on by the environment. Mutations that are beneficial increase in the population, and vice versa. Of course, genetic recombination should not be forgotten as the other driver of evolution.
Lalilulelo Posted June 14, 2015 Posted June 14, 2015 Hello, Darwinism is true because that's what the evidence tells us. Like I said in a previous comment, what is this evidence? If it is too much to fit in this topic, only share the strongest most compelling argument. As you might have noticed from my posts, I don't mind getting into detail on this topic (since that's the point of the OP anyway) but I cannot do anything with the almost dogmatic repetition of the statement: it's true because science/all the evidence/strongest model. Intelligent Design commits the Watchmaker Fallacy (a false analogy) by asserting that purposeful design in complex, manmade things implies a purposeful desinger in complex, natural things. I haven't argued for intelligent design, only for the inadequacy of Darwinian evolution. But to be complete: 1/ You are assuming intelligent design rests on the watchmaker analogy. That is an incorrect assumption, because, for instance, intelligent design argues the physical world makes spontaneous generation impossible as it is inherently hostile to life (think UV light, oxidation, hydrolysis, etc.) 2/ Your link doesn't say the watchmaker analogy is a fallacy; rather it presents positions which are for and against the watchmaker analogy. You might want to correct that. 3/ As to the fallacious character or not of this analogy you brought up: * For the watchmaker analogy to be valid, living organisms just like the watch must require a designing intelligence. Spontaneous generation/abiogenesis and evolution are impossible. * For the watchmaker analogy to be fallacious, living organisms unlike the watch would not require a designing intelligence; they can and do exist thanks to spontaneous generation and evolution. So, basically, what you need to do before you conclude it's fallacious, is to (sorry to say this again) present evidence of the truth of spontaneous generation and Darwinian evolution. Because you cannot skip the whole controversy and go to your preferred conclusion. Once again that would just be dogmatic repetition, which qualifies as an actual fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion. ____________ @ WasatchMan I agree the OP could have been better formulated, and I'm glad we cleared up a few things. But to make the most of our time, and as you have spoken of lots of evidence again, I have to ask you the same question as before: how about sharing it here? If a mountain of evidence is too much, then by all means only share the strongest most compelling argument. That seems like a fair question to someone repeatedly appealing to "evidence", in a topic about evidence. 1 1
Ray H. Posted June 15, 2015 Posted June 15, 2015 Lalilulelo, Mitochondrial DNA is quite compelling. And its evolution depends entirely on mutations; no recombination here.
WasatchMan Posted June 15, 2015 Posted June 15, 2015 If a mountain of evidence is too much, then by all means only share the strongest most compelling argument. The fossil record.
Lalilulelo Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 Hello Ray H, Lalilulelo, Mitochondrial DNA is quite compelling. And its evolution depends entirely on mutations; no recombination here. Sure, only mitochondrial DNA from the female is transmitted; and it's no secret mtDNA doesn't go through recombination. But how does that compel one to accept Darwinian evolution? The link you provided does not address this. It basically aims to provide substantiation to the idea that, assuming Darwinian evolution is true, natural selection could only act on mitochondrial genes expressed in females, since mtDNA from males is not transmitted to next generations. In other words, and perhaps in spite of the authors' objectives and yours by linking to their work: natural selection is an inadequate mechanism when it comes to mitochondrial genes that are expressed in males. As the authors rightly point out in their introduction, this failure of selection leads to the accumulation of deleterious male-specific mitochondrial mutations, which will be mostly expressed in reproductive organs [they are sex-specific, after all], which in turn could cause "a sharp decline in male fertility" [i.e., the end of the species]. So again, how is this compelling evidence for the idea that mutations (the main driving force in neo-Darwinian theory) and natural selection (the filter of survival-enhancing traits) are the mechanisms behind the healthy reproductive and complex organisms we have today? The fossil record. Care to share how the fossil record is compelling evidence to you? I'm afraid it is not to me, and like I said before, I am unable to address proposed evidence or argumentation in this topic unless it is presented.
WasatchMan Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 Care to share how the fossil record is compelling evidence to you? I'm afraid it is not to me, and like I said before, I am unable to address proposed evidence or argumentation in this topic unless it is presented. Yeah, I don't care to. It is pretty easy to research on your own, if the research and arguments available by a simple Google search aren't compelling to you, then I don't really care to waste my time explaining something as easy to understand and as well documented as the fossil record. I really don't care if you want to be scientifically illiterate. 2 3
Ray H. Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 From the study: "Existence of a sex-specific selective sieve in mtDNA is likely to exert strong selection on counteradaptations in the nuclear genome that restore lost male function." Followed by links to other studies.
Recommended Posts