CDZ Another Evolution vs Creationism Debate

[Elvis Obama]

The theory of evolution is a theory so well supported by the weight of evidence that some have come to call it settled fact and not theory.

Then why can't anyone provide that proof, other than to just keep repeating what you just said?

Proof of what? Proof that scientists take observable phenomena and try to come up with the best possible explanation for these observed facts? Proof that these explanations are subject to peer review?

This is a dishonest discussion, and a very sad one. A perfect storm of science, politics and religion. Religion doesn't like being painted as nothing but fairy tales. Too bad. Then, after failing to silence the voice of science, religion tries to pretend that they are science too!

Scientists don't like this. They are human beings. Somewhat arrogant within their field of knowledge and very much aware that they are in a political battle with the forces of science denial. They have nothing but contempt for anyone who supports the pseudo-scientific concept of creationism. They rightly consider this so-called debate to be beneath them and a waste of their time.

All you have to do to prevail is beat the scientists at their own game. So far, creationism and intelligent design have earned nothing but contempt from the scientific community. What in the world do you think you are going to accomplish with this so-called debate amongst lay persons? You don't accept the scientific analysis of the fossil record. You think the vast consensus amongst scientists is not genuine science, but instead a sinister plot against religion. That is not a valid basis for a debate.

 

[FA_Q2]

adaptation is not evolution, evolution means you are not the same species, while adaptation can be as minor as a change in size, still the same, just look different.

evolution fails at the TK boundary, utterly.

after that event the only thing left were a few small, underground mammals and some sea life.

even over million of years you are not going to go from rodent to crocodile.

case in point; we share dna with bananas

The very concept of specie is an old idea that is meaningless. The differences in species are nothing more than a very large amount of adaptation.

Really? Tell us how, and give some examples that have been verified. Tell us how a tiger and a horse are related. Which one came first and when did it happen? I can't wait to witness your scientific brilliance.

And you claim others are the source of vitriol?

Here is a short list of species that can interbreed:
11 amazing hybrid animals

Meaning that they are not as different as might be implied with the idea of spices. Tell me, what, exactly, makes a species? Why is a tiger one species and a horse another? That is why the very idea of a species is meaningless - there is no real scientific definition that would fit the idea. Originally it was an easier way to classify living things according to basic similarities that they might exhibit. There is noting, however, scientific or even very useful in that classification. When does a dog cease being a dog? Where do you place that line? Beagles and Irish setters are unable to cross breed. Are they different species now? How comes separate species like the tiger and lion are considered so but then you have irish setters and beagles that seem to have larger more pronounced differences than the tiger and lion?

I suspect that you are not even interested in the question you asked but there is research on where those lines comes from and how they split:
Horse Evolution
BBC - Earth News - Tigers evolved with snow leopards, gene study reveals

Most of the current research is based in genetics.

 

[jwoodie]

As far as the infinitesimal chances, our observations of space suggest that there are billions of stars in our own galaxy. Recent observations tell us that many probably have planets orbiting them. Even with small chances that those planets are in the "goldilocks zone" that still leaves a lot of potential planets capable of supporting life as we know it.

The logical extension of this "statistical" argument is that, with an infinite universe, there are an infinite number of other planets exactly like Earth; in fact, there must be some with life forms exactly like our own. Therefore, my duplicate must be sitting at a computer in a far corner of the universe right now composing the exact same post! (It's provable: Just multiply the most infinitesimal probability by infinity and you will get absolute certainty.)

 

[baileyn45]

As far as the infinitesimal chances, our observations of space suggest that there are billions of stars in our own galaxy. Recent observations tell us that many probably have planets orbiting them. Even with small chances that those planets are in the "goldilocks zone" that still leaves a lot of potential planets capable of supporting life as we know it.

The logical extension of this "statistical" argument is that, with an infinite universe, there are an infinite number of other planets exactly like Earth; in fact, there must be some with life forms exactly like our own. Therefore, your duplicate is probably sitting at a computer in a far corner of the universe right now composing the exact same post! (It's provable: Just multiply the most infinitesimal probability by infinity and you will get absolute certainty.)

The problem here is with "infinite". I don't believe there are infinite numbers of planets just lots.

My biggest problem with creationism is that I can make up more plausible theories.

For instance. I believe new species arise because aliens come to this planet and manipulate the genes of present species.

Now we know there are physical, rational beings in existence because we are physical, rational(sometimes) beings.
As stated earlier, through observation, we believe there are potentially millions maybe billions of other planets out there.
Through modern medicine we know that genetic manipulation is possible.
We have humans working in space as we speak. The idea of traveling to other worlds while not possible now is by no means entirely out of the question.

To me that is more plausible than an unknown creator being wishing new species into existence.

 

[FA_Q2]

As continuing from the Bull Ring: Bull Ring - Another Evolution vs Creationism Debate

This is now open to all posters as per S.J.'s and my agreement.

Refrain from trolling or derailing this thread please. This isn't a political debate, so stay on the subjects in the context of their scientific merits. Also, no ad hominem or insults.

We request that all arguments be made in your own words: if you understand the arguments then you can make them in your own words without cut and pasting.

S.J.

My last post on the subject from the Bull Ring debate:

Adaptation is evolution, like I wrote earlier. Common ancestry is inferred, which is a perfectly legitimate scientific process.

Let me illustrate for you how the inference works and why it is so widely accepted: you aren't identical to your parents. Your children are/will not be identical to you. Play that out over hundreds of thousands of generations and the very last one of your line will not even be recognizable as the same species as you if the traits favored for the survivalof your line (in other words naturally selected) are not the traits selected for when it came to you. That's why a few ancient species still remain, they fit their environment very well and their environment hasn't changed. Any mutations were not selected for and the species are largely the same. But that is the exception.

DNA is essentially code. Anything can and does corrupt that code, i.e. cancer, viruses, birth defects, congenital defects, etc. If a particular species' code is corrupted enough times over enough years, it will no longer be recognizable as that species. Go long enough and it won't be recognizable as that genus. Even more time, let's say 200 million years, and the original DNA will code for an organism for which we don't even have a kingdom classification.

Remember that the categories into which we place animals are entirely in our minds. Carl Linnaeus came up with the current system based on morphology and it works very well for when we need terms to discuss biology and organisms. However, all organisms belong to a single, fluid, changing process called life.

"Evolution vs. Creationism" is a great example of substituting pejorative terminology for honest inquiry. Those supporting the former spend more time castigating and misrepresenting the questions raised by their skeptics than in explaining (or even wondering about) how one species might actually transform itself into entirely new (incompatible) species.

Accordingly, the main argument used to support popular "evolution" theory is that the Earth and all life upon it could not have been created in only seven "days" as described in the Bible. Thus the debate is deceptively centered on the beliefs of certain "fundamentalist" Christians rather than on scientific evidence confirming the theory of gradual "evolution" into new species.

While there is very little archaeological evidence of any inter-species transformation, there is much evidence of many new species appearing within relatively narrow time frames. Why and how might this have occurred, and why do so many "evolutionists" avoid these questions?

That is not the 'main argument' supporting evolution or even an argument at all. It is irrelevant as far as evolution goes. The theological 7 day creation stands on its own and is a matter of faith. Further, 'evolutionists' as you put it are not avoiding anything. Simply stating so does not make it true. I have already pointed out the meaninglessness of the term 'species' in the context of genetics and, by extension, evolution. It seems that you are working with an idea of evolution that is older than genetics.

In all reality, evolution explores and attempts to discribes the method that life took to become what it is today. It does not in any shape or form declare that life does not have a creator.

 

[S.J.]

Whenever the evolutionists are pinned down by challenges they cannot meet, they almost invariably revert to attacking the Bible. This is their default strategy for avoiding uncomfortable questions. I've repeatedly asked for documented (and observed) evidence of how unrelated species are if fact related. The response I get is either an ad hom attack on a quote from a religion or a personal insult. They refuse to just acknowledge they don't know because if they did, that would mean their theory is based as much on faith as creationism.
BUT if they did that, they would not be able to force THEIR faith on our children in the public schools. This is how the felt operates.

 

[baileyn45]

Whenever the evolutionists are pinned down by challenges they cannot meet, they almost invariably revert to attacking the Bible. This is their default strategy for avoiding uncomfortable questions. I've repeatedly asked for documented (and observed) evidence of how unrelated species are if fact related. The response I get is either an ad hom attack on a quote from a religion or a personal insult. They refuse to just acknowledge they don't know because if they did, that would mean their theory is based as much on faith as creationism.
BUT if they did that, they would not be able to force THEIR faith on our children in the public schools. This is how the felt operates.

DNA. Virtually every living creature on this planet shares genetic material to some degree.

Science does not state that we know evolution is a fact it is the best current theory supported by observation, fossil record, dna.
Only creationists claim "we know" for certain
As far as school goes the idea is to teach critical thinking. Don't accept as fact just because someone says so. Search for evidence.

 

[FA_Q2]

Whenever the evolutionists are pinned down by challenges they cannot meet, they almost invariably revert to attacking the Bible. This is their default strategy for avoiding uncomfortable questions. I've repeatedly asked for documented (and observed) evidence of how unrelated species are if fact related. The response I get is either an ad hom attack on a quote from a religion or a personal insult. They refuse to just acknowledge they don't know because if they did, that would mean their theory is based as much on faith as creationism.
BUT if they did that, they would not be able to force THEIR faith on our children in the public schools. This is how the felt operates.

...
No one in this thread has attacked you or the bible that I see.

People have addressed your questions.

 

[S.J.]

DNA. Virtually every living creature on this planet shares genetic material to some degree.

That's your proof that we evolved from apes?

Science does not state that we know evolution is a fact it is the best current theory supported by observation, fossil record, dna.
Only creationists claim "we know" for certain

Sorry, but many of you claim that evolution is fact. Just read some of the threads in this forum.

As far as school goes the idea is to teach critical thinking. Don't accept as fact just because someone says so. Search for evidence.

No, the idea is to push their faith of evolution on our children and if the child wants a passing grade they have to accept evolution as fact just because someone says so.

 

[Syriusly]

The objective terminology in this debate should be "gradual transformation into new species" vs. "interventional creation of new species." The former theory is derived from the observable adaptation of species to their local environment (e.g., polar bears), but has little archaeological evidence or biological explanation for their transformation into entirely new species. .

That is a great jumping off point for a discussion.

And polar bears are a great example. As you note- polar bears clearly are adapted to their environment. But "Polar Bears" didn't turn from a brown bear to a "white bear"- Polar Bears evolved from Brown Bears into the separate species- polar bear. This evolution from one species to another is supported both by fossil evidence- and by DNA

http://www.geol.umd.edu/~candela/pbevol.html

Hecht (in Chaline, 1983) describes polar bear evolution: the first "polar bear", Ursus maritimus tyrannus, was essentially a brown bear subspecies, with brown bear dimensions and brown bear teeth. Over the next 20,000 years, body size reduced and the skull elongated. As late as 10,000 years ago, polar bears still had a high frequency of brown-bear-type molars. Only recently have they developed polar-bear-type teeth.
Kurten (1976) describes bear transitions: "From the early Ursus minimus of 5 million years ago to the late Pleistocene cave bear, there is a perfectly complete evolutionary sequence without any real gaps. The transition is slow and gradual throughout, and it is quite difficult to say where one species ends and the next begins. Where should we draw the boundary between U. minimus and U. etruscus, or between U. savini and U. spelaeus? The history of the cave bear becomes a demonstration of evolution, not as a hypothesis or theory but as a simple fact of record." He adds, "In this respect the cave bear's history is far from unique."

One small fossil, one giant step for polar bear evolution

 

[S.J.]

No one in this thread has attacked you or the bible that I see.

Because we're in the CDZ. Check some of the other threads.

People have addressed your questions.

No one has shown any documentation that one species has ever evolved into another.

 

[Syriusly]

Whenever the evolutionists are pinned down by challenges they cannot meet, they almost invariably revert to attacking the Bible. This is their default strategy for avoiding uncomfortable questions..

Who is doing this? Rather than attack 'evolutionists'- stick to arguing your points.

Now- are you willing to state what you do believe in? Creationism? Evolution? What theory do you believe accounts for the diversity of life on Earth?

 

[S.J.]

And polar bears are a great example. As you note- polar bears clearly are adapted to their environment. But "Polar Bears" didn't turn from a brown bear to a "white bear"- Polar Bears evolved from Brown Bears into the separate species- polar bear. This evolution from one species to another is supported both by fossil evidence- and by DNA

But they're still bears, not horses.

 

[Syriusly]

. I've repeatedly asked for documented (and observed) evidence of how unrelated species are if fact related. .

An 'unrelated species' by definition cannot be 'related'.

 

[Syriusly]

And polar bears are a great example. As you note- polar bears clearly are adapted to their environment. But "Polar Bears" didn't turn from a brown bear to a "white bear"- Polar Bears evolved from Brown Bears into the separate species- polar bear. This evolution from one species to another is supported both by fossil evidence- and by DNA

But they're still bears, not horses.

I was going to reply flippantly "And?" but instead- why not respond to the point? Brown bears and Polar Bears are separate species- no one would mistake one for the other. I have provided evidence that polar bears evolved from earlier Brown Bears.

Address my post if you are interested in a debate of the issues- rather than trying to derail the thread.

 

[S.J.]

. I've repeatedly asked for documented (and observed) evidence of how unrelated species are if fact related. .

An 'unrelated species' by definition cannot be 'related'.

Exactly, yet you claim they have a common ancestor. That would mean they're related.

 

[Syriusly]

. I've repeatedly asked for documented (and observed) evidence of how unrelated species are if fact related. .

An 'unrelated species' by definition cannot be 'related'.

Exactly, yet you claim they have a common ancestor. That would mean they're related.

A related species is a related species. An unrelated species is an unrelated species.

 

[S.J.]

. I've repeatedly asked for documented (and observed) evidence of how unrelated species are if fact related. .

An 'unrelated species' by definition cannot be 'related'.

Exactly, yet you claim they have a common ancestor. That would mean they're related.

A related species is a related species. An unrelated species is an unrelated species.

I agree. So how can two different species come from the same ancestor if they're not related?

 

[320 Years of History]

And polar bears are a great example. As you note- polar bears clearly are adapted to their environment. But "Polar Bears" didn't turn from a brown bear to a "white bear"- Polar Bears evolved from Brown Bears into the separate species- polar bear. This evolution from one species to another is supported both by fossil evidence- and by DNA

But they're still bears, not horses.

I was going to reply flippantly "And?" but instead- why not respond to the point? Brown bears and Polar Bears are separate species- no one would mistake one for the other. I have provided evidence that polar bears evolved from earlier Brown Bears.

Address my post if you are interested in a debate of the issues- rather than trying to derail the thread.

The instant you come across someone talking about "a horse didn't become a bear" or some other such silliness, you may as well move on because the instant they utter that (or similar) remark, you realize that they don't get that one aspect of evolution is that Archea and other prokaryotes are what evolved into bears, horses, birds, etc. You have two choices with those folks:

• spend countless hours battling over all manners of things, all the while the central and often tacit thing enabling/underlying their conviction has nothing to do with what science has or has not shown and everything to do with their degree of faith in the verity of the words written in whatever be their central book of dogma, or
• move on and use that time for some other substantive or entertaining pursuit.

I don't have a problem with folks having faith in whatever. I do have a problem with folks presenting faith as though it's reason. I also have no interest in discussing things with folks who lack the confidence and intellectual integrity to accept and recognize that their having faith that "whatever" is true/real obviates the need for them to have proof that it is true/real. If there were incontrovertible proof, one wouldn't need to have faith, now would one?

 

[Syriusly]

. I've repeatedly asked for documented (and observed) evidence of how unrelated species are if fact related. .

An 'unrelated species' by definition cannot be 'related'.

Exactly, yet you claim they have a common ancestor. That would mean they're related.

A related species is a related species. An unrelated species is an unrelated species.

I agree. So how can two different species come from the same ancestor if they're not related?

Two different species can come from earlier ancestor- when that is the case they are related- not unrelated.