Was stumped by a Creationist

[RetiredGySgt]

I believe in evolution dumb ass.

No, you don't. Evolutionary theory is the explanation for the diversity of species. You don't believe animals speciate. Therefore, no , you do not believe in evolution .


One more time:

Let's assume we have no definitive proof that any mammal has ever evolved into two, distinct species. (Your only contribution to the discussion)

How would this contradict or undermine evolutionary theory?

Again RETARD you can not provide a single verifiable example of a single Mammal evolving into 2 or more distinctly different species. Without that proof there is no evidence to support the claim that mammals have done so.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I was discussing Creationism with a friend. Put simply, he believes in it and I don't. He criticized the way I was comparing Creationism to Evolution in that I was pointing out that there is a considerable amount of verifiable evidence supporting Evolution, while there is basically none supporting Creationism. His point is that since Karl Popper re-defined how science is practiced, this is irrelevant. He pointed out that scientists have stopped relying on verifiable evidence to support their theories and have switched over to assessing their theories instead on the basis of how little evidence there is against them, assuming that the theory is theoretically falsifiable to begin with. In other words, the lack of verifiable evidence in support of Creationism is now irrelevant, as is the amount of verifiable evidence in support of Evolution.

He then brought up many criticisms of Evolution which were hard to respond to. I was having difficulty criticizing Creationism to the same extent because he didn't offer any evidence to support it other than vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotal stories about things like this one guy that prayed, his illness went away, and the doctors can't currently explain it. How do you critique vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotes?

My response was that while I can't really argue with what he says, Creationism is not falsifiable and he responded that Evolution is not either. I didn't know how to respond to that.

You’re easily stumped.

You’re also not required to respond to a ‘creationist’ and his errant beliefs, subjective perceptions, and anecdotal accounts because they’re devoid of fact and logic – as is ‘creationism’; such an ‘argument’ fails as a hasty generalization fallacy, consequently you’ve won the argument.

And evolution is a fact – replete with objective, documented evidence in support of the fact of evolution.

You might want to familiarize yourself with these facts should you enter into another such exchange.

 

[cnm]

If you wish to specifically debunk Popper's claims about evolution, read about the naked mole rat.

I'm not sure they need to be debunked...

And yet, the theory is invaluable. I do not see how, without it, our knowledge could have grown as it has done since Darwin. In trying to explain experiments with bacteria which become adapted to, say, penicillin, it is quite clear that we are greatly helped by the theory of natural selection. Although it is metaphysical, it sheds much light upon very concrete and very practical researches. It allows us to study adaptation to a new environment (such as a penicillin-infested environment) in a rational way: it suggests the existence of a mechanism of adaptation, and it allows us even to study in detail the mechanism at work. And it is the only theory so far which does all that.
https://scienceblogs.com/​

 

[Olde Europe]

His point is that since Karl Popper re-defined how science is practiced, this is irrelevant. He pointed out that scientists have stopped relying on verifiable evidence to support their theories and have switched over to assessing their theories instead on the basis of how little evidence there is against them, assuming that the theory is theoretically falsifiable to begin with. In other words, the lack of verifiable evidence in support of Creationism is now irrelevant, as is the amount of verifiable evidence in support of Evolution.

That's patently nonsense. Scientists have never stopped to care for "verifiable evidence".

Scientific theories are evaluated based on their explanatory value, that is, the extent to which they explain the available evidence, AND, that there is no contrary evidence, that is, evidence that cannot be explained, or plainly contradicts the theory.

The main building blocks of the theory of evolution - mutation and natural selection - hold up, and are being confirmed by modern gene sequencing. For the main building block of creationism, god's hand, there is no evidence, and it's explanatory value is therefore zero.

 

[pinqy]

Name a proven single Mammal species that evolved into 2 proven entirely different species.

Why do you specify mammals? Are you acknowledging observed speciation of plants, flies, bacteria, etc?

Do you have an example of a mammal being spontaneously created with no ancestors?

Plants insects bacteria are not mammals and just because one type of life can evolve into separate distinct entities does not mean another can.

I never said otherwise, what I’m trying to figure out is what your claim is. Is it your claim that speciation occurs in all other classes, phylya, and kingdoms, just not mammals?

It seems odd to accept speciation in plants and insects but claim that it is not possible with mammals. What distinction are you claiming?

Perhaps you can explain how we have actual proof that it happens in plants and insects BUT none in mammals?

Assuming by “actual proof” you mean direct observation durin one human’s lifetime. The answer to that is: Time and the number of generations available to work with.

If you accept recorded history, archeology, and DNA evidence, we can show speciation definitively in the case of the aurochs as ancestor to European cattle and the Indian zebu. The zebu is a distinct species from taurine cattle, but we can show common descent, since wild aurochs lived survived in Poland into the 17th century.


Your turn. Why do you think speciation happens in plants, bacteria, insects, but not mammals? And what about reptiles amphibians, birds, crustaceans, etc?

 

[danielpalos]

I was discussing Creationism with a friend. Put simply, he believes in it and I don't. He criticized the way I was comparing Creationism to Evolution in that I was pointing out that there is a considerable amount of verifiable evidence supporting Evolution, while there is basically none supporting Creationism. His point is that since Karl Popper re-defined how science is practiced, this is irrelevant. He pointed out that scientists have stopped relying on verifiable evidence to support their theories and have switched over to assessing their theories instead on the basis of how little evidence there is against them, assuming that the theory is theoretically falsifiable to begin with. In other words, the lack of verifiable evidence in support of Creationism is now irrelevant, as is the amount of verifiable evidence in support of Evolution.

He then brought up many criticisms of Evolution which were hard to respond to. I was having difficulty criticizing Creationism to the same extent because he didn't offer any evidence to support it other than vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotal stories about things like this one guy that prayed, his illness went away, and the doctors can't currently explain it. How do you critique vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotes?

My response was that while I can't really argue with what he says, Creationism is not falsifiable and he responded that Evolution is not either. I didn't know how to respond to that.

All myths are based on Creationism.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Without that proof there is no evidence to support the claim that mammals have done so.

Of course there is evidence.

But again....assuming as true we have no proof of this.... How would this undermine or contradict evolutionary theory? That IS the point you are trying to make, right?

So, make it .

 

[Marion Morrison]

And yet not one shred of ACTUAL evidence that a single mammal species ever evolved into two or more distinctly different species.

of course, that is hilariously false and would net you an f on a high school biology test.

Name one that did, then.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And yet not one shred of ACTUAL evidence that a single mammal species ever evolved into two or more distinctly different species.

of course, that is hilariously false and would net you an f on a high school biology test.

Name one that did, then.

That question doesn't make sense. And I'm sure you have no idea why.

 

[Marion Morrison]

And yet not one shred of ACTUAL evidence that a single mammal species ever evolved into two or more distinctly different species.

of course, that is hilariously false and would net you an f on a high school biology test.

Name one that did, then.

That question doesn't make sense. And I'm sure you have no idea why.

Provide a recorded instance of it happening. You can't, because it never has.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And yet not one shred of ACTUAL evidence that a single mammal species ever evolved into two or more distinctly different species.

of course, that is hilariously false and would net you an f on a high school biology test.

Name one that did, then.

That question doesn't make sense. And I'm sure you have no idea why.

Provide a recorded instance of it happening. You can't, because it never has.

That's not why your question makes little sense. You aren't equipped to have a discussion about this topic.

Chimps and bonobos are two different species. We know they split a couple of million years ago. But you are about to give us your alternative explanation for this.

And....go!

 

[rightwinger]

I was discussing Creationism with a friend. Put simply, he believes in it and I don't. He criticized the way I was comparing Creationism to Evolution in that I was pointing out that there is a considerable amount of verifiable evidence supporting Evolution, while there is basically none supporting Creationism. His point is that since Karl Popper re-defined how science is practiced, this is irrelevant. He pointed out that scientists have stopped relying on verifiable evidence to support their theories and have switched over to assessing their theories instead on the basis of how little evidence there is against them, assuming that the theory is theoretically falsifiable to begin with. In other words, the lack of verifiable evidence in support of Creationism is now irrelevant, as is the amount of verifiable evidence in support of Evolution.

He then brought up many criticisms of Evolution which were hard to respond to. I was having difficulty criticizing Creationism to the same extent because he didn't offer any evidence to support it other than vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotal stories about things like this one guy that prayed, his illness went away, and the doctors can't currently explain it. How do you critique vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotes?

My response was that while I can't really argue with what he says, Creationism is not falsifiable and he responded that Evolution is not either. I didn't know how to respond to that.

Ask him to recreate his theory

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I was discussing Creationism with a friend. Put simply, he believes in it and I don't. He criticized the way I was comparing Creationism to Evolution in that I was pointing out that there is a considerable amount of verifiable evidence supporting Evolution, while there is basically none supporting Creationism. His point is that since Karl Popper re-defined how science is practiced, this is irrelevant. He pointed out that scientists have stopped relying on verifiable evidence to support their theories and have switched over to assessing their theories instead on the basis of how little evidence there is against them, assuming that the theory is theoretically falsifiable to begin with. In other words, the lack of verifiable evidence in support of Creationism is now irrelevant, as is the amount of verifiable evidence in support of Evolution.

He then brought up many criticisms of Evolution which were hard to respond to. I was having difficulty criticizing Creationism to the same extent because he didn't offer any evidence to support it other than vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotal stories about things like this one guy that prayed, his illness went away, and the doctors can't currently explain it. How do you critique vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotes?

My response was that while I can't really argue with what he says, Creationism is not falsifiable and he responded that Evolution is not either. I didn't know how to respond to that.

Ask him to recreate his theory

First you recreate an actual mammal becoming 2 distinctly different mammals.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And yet not one shred of ACTUAL evidence that a single mammal species ever evolved into two or more distinctly different species.

of course, that is hilariously false and would net you an f on a high school biology test.

Name one that did, then.

That question doesn't make sense. And I'm sure you have no idea why.

Provide a recorded instance of it happening. You can't, because it never has.

That's not why your question makes little sense. You aren't equipped to have a discussion about this topic.

Chimps and bonobos are two different species. We know they split a couple of million years ago. But you are about to give us your alternative explanation for this.

And....go!

Really and where is your proof?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

of course, that is hilariously false and would net you an f on a high school biology test.

Name one that did, then.

That question doesn't make sense. And I'm sure you have no idea why.

Provide a recorded instance of it happening. You can't, because it never has.

That's not why your question makes little sense. You aren't equipped to have a discussion about this topic.

Chimps and bonobos are two different species. We know they split a couple of million years ago. But you are about to give us your alternative explanation for this.

And....go!

Really and where is your proof?

Stop repeating yourself. It's time for you to make your point.

If it is assumed as true that there is no proof of one mammal species evolving into two distinct mammal species....how would this undermine or contradict evolutionary theory?

Man, you sure are having a hard time with this. Odd, since it seems to be the only point you are able to reference. Yet you can't even state it? How embarrassing.

 

[rightwinger]

I was discussing Creationism with a friend. Put simply, he believes in it and I don't. He criticized the way I was comparing Creationism to Evolution in that I was pointing out that there is a considerable amount of verifiable evidence supporting Evolution, while there is basically none supporting Creationism. His point is that since Karl Popper re-defined how science is practiced, this is irrelevant. He pointed out that scientists have stopped relying on verifiable evidence to support their theories and have switched over to assessing their theories instead on the basis of how little evidence there is against them, assuming that the theory is theoretically falsifiable to begin with. In other words, the lack of verifiable evidence in support of Creationism is now irrelevant, as is the amount of verifiable evidence in support of Evolution.

He then brought up many criticisms of Evolution which were hard to respond to. I was having difficulty criticizing Creationism to the same extent because he didn't offer any evidence to support it other than vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotal stories about things like this one guy that prayed, his illness went away, and the doctors can't currently explain it. How do you critique vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotes?

My response was that while I can't really argue with what he says, Creationism is not falsifiable and he responded that Evolution is not either. I didn't know how to respond to that.

Ask him to recreate his theory

First you recreate an actual mammal becoming 2 distinctly different mammals.

I have plenty of evidence of evolution in biology, DNA, Geology, fossils

You have no evidence of creation

 

[Olde Europe]

If it is assumed as true that there is no proof of one mammal species evolving into two distinct mammal species....how would this undermine or contradict evolutionary theory?

Obviously, this would undermine the theory of evolution at least as it pertains to mammals, as seemingly mutations in mammals would not occur (the precondition for different species to emerge), and thus the diversity of mammal species would be rendered beyond explanation.

That, however, is bullshit from beginning to end, as the diversity of mammal life proves that mammals do evolve, from the first occurrence of a mammal species to the diversity we see today. Our own species, which has a common ancestor with gorillas and chimpanzees, should be proof enough, but...

As far as my reading goes, creationist crap peddlers seem as block-headed as climate science deniers - maybe they are not really distinct species after all...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Obviously, this would undermine the theory of evolution at least as it pertains to mammals, as seemingly mutations in mammals would not occur (the precondition for different species to emerge), and thus the diversity of mammal species would be rendered beyond explanation.

But mutations do occur. We know that for a fact. He is saying there is no definitive proof that any mammal has ever speciated. We have never seen this happen (for reasons which are obvious to you and me, but apparently not so obvious for our friend, here).

But it seems he is arguing that this undermines evolution. I still don't see how. And he sure isn't going to try to tell us how. Just ask these deniers for any kind of detailed explanation or argument, and they run for the hills. Well, the ones possessing at least an ounce of honesty or shame run for the hills. Then you have posters like JBond, who are plenty shameless enough to just repeat the same debunked lies over and over and over.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And yet NOT A SINGLE proven case NONE NADA ZIP. We have examples of in species evolution why none for other species? By the way you retards even if you prove it it does not mean God did not just use that method as his method. Science says that something happened but in this case can not verify it can not prove it can not duplicate it all required of GASP science.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And yet NOT A SINGLE proven case NONE NADA ZIP.

...of speciation of mammals. Got it. You said it ten times.

Now: how does not having a "proven" case of this undermine or contradict evolutionary theory? You sure are having a hard time stating the only argument you are bringing to the topic.