Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

Evolution?

Alpha3141
Posts: 154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2015 1:04:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Isn't the theory of Evolution just based on logical fallacies and philosophical beliefs?

By "Evolution" I mean particles to people kind of evolution.

I'm curious to see what people will say and think about this.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2015 1:52:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/30/2015 1:04:04 AM, Alpha3141 wrote:
Isn't the theory of Evolution just based on logical fallacies and philosophical beliefs?


By "Evolution" I mean particles to people kind of evolution.


I'm curious to see what people will say and think about this.

Absolutely, cause their is no biologist (other than creationists) on the planet that has ever read a book on introduction to logic what so ever.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Aran55633
Posts: 110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 4:06:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/30/2015 1:04:04 AM, Alpha3141 wrote:
Isn't the theory of Evolution just based on logical fallacies and philosophical beliefs?


By "Evolution" I mean particles to people kind of evolution.


I'm curious to see what people will say and think about this.

If you substituted the word "creationism" in everywhere you used the term "evolution", you would have been fine.

If we are the "chosen ones" of this god, it doesn't make sense to create an entire universe as grandiose as this, and then place us on a tiny little planet which is dwarfed by this universe to such a mind-boggling degree. Why do it?

If this god loves us, why doesn't he communicate with us as he supposedly did 2,000 years ago?

If he is omniscient, why couldn't he prevent a murder when there were only four people on Earth?

Creationism doesn't explain the twin nested hierarchy, vestigial structures, examples of "bad design", or why over 99% of all the species that have ever existed are now extinct.

Evolution is based on the evidence.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 4:24:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
There is overwhelming evidence for evolution. It would be extremely unlikely based on everything we know for it to be false, however I also find it very unlikely that natural selection alone suffices to explain how we got to this point.
Otokage
Posts: 2,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 7:12:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/30/2015 1:04:04 AM, Alpha3141 wrote:
Isn't the theory of Evolution just based on logical fallacies and philosophical beliefs?


By "Evolution" I mean particles to people kind of evolution.


I'm curious to see what people will say and think about this.

No. But I can grant you it is a very counterintuitive theory. Most kids have a lot of problems understanding the actual theory. Most of my students are lamarckists, I'm so sure about it... This is because lamarckism makes a lot of sense, I mean it sounds perfect: you use your arm a lot, your arms will become better, then your son will have naturally strong arms. I'm sure that this idea is something that even cavemen believed, so I guess it is only natural that just 150 years of darwinian evolution are not enough to change a view that is so rooted in society.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 7:59:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 4:06:09 AM, Aran55633 wrote:
At 7/30/2015 1:04:04 AM, Alpha3141 wrote:
Isn't the theory of Evolution just based on logical fallacies and philosophical beliefs?


By "Evolution" I mean particles to people kind of evolution.


I'm curious to see what people will say and think about this.

If you substituted the word "creationism" in everywhere you used the term "evolution", you would have been fine.

Well, evolution is equivalent to "slow creationism", so it makes sense I guess.

If we are the "chosen ones" of this god, it doesn't make sense to create an entire universe as grandiose as this, and then place us on a tiny little planet which is dwarfed by this universe to such a mind-boggling degree. Why do it?

Sounds like an argument from ignorance: "I don't see the wisdom, therefore wisdom doesn't exist!".
To display that he is over all things competent for instance.

If this god loves us, why doesn't he communicate with us as he supposedly did 2,000 years ago?

Argument from ignorance. Different theistic religions have answers for this question, but I think the most common one would be that the final message is universal and applies to all times and places.

If he is omniscient, why couldn't he prevent a murder when there were only four people on Earth?

Argument from ignorance. It is seen as a lesson that killing one innocent is similar to killing all of mankind, and saving one life is similar to saving all of mankind.

Creationism doesn't explain the twin nested hierarchy, vestigial structures, examples of "bad design", or why over 99% of all the species that have ever existed are now extinct.

Mere hypotheses can explain anything. Here is a geocentric earth model accounting for observations of celestial bodies:
https://www.withfriendship.com...

Organisms that don't fit into the phylogenetic tree are often found. Hence ad hocs such as convergent evolution and punctured equilibrium are invoked to force fit them. This is due to common ancestry being incapable of explaining the data. Does this mean that common ancestry is questioned? Nope, because the first and primary assumption of all evolutionary phylogenetic classification methodologies is that common ancestry is true. Question begging intensives.

Hence, your supposed hierarchy can't count as evidence. Any set of objects, whether biological or not, can be classified hierarchically. You can have a hierarchy for chairs (material, color, manufacture date, etc.), or cars, etc. The fact that life, like pretty much anythings, can be classified in a hierarchically is not an argument and neither does it provide anything new or interesting.

What do you mean by "vestigial structures"? How can one theologically determine when a certain function is important enough to make it plausible that a Creator would specially design a structure to fulfill it?
Unless you define vestigial as having no function at all. But how can you be certain an apparently functionless structure is really functionless? Hundreds of alleged "vestigial organs" have been shown to be false; as science advances research has shown definite functions. Hence you seem to be arguing from ignorance: "We don"t know what they are so they MUST be vestigial!".
Of course, a change in environment or conditions (like recessive genetics, nutrients, age, etc.) can induce a degradation of body parts (ie. an insect losing wings in a very windy environment, or fish losing their eyes after getting stuck in a pitch-black cave). "if you don"t use it, you lose it", and that is called atrophy. but that is irrelevant as the phenomena can exist regardless of whether there is universal common ancestry or not. If anything that sounds more like devolution; why isn't there a list of structures that are developing into new improved organs? Why is it assumed that these structures are being lost? Because they know they are unable to find evidence for such claims?

You said "Design"? But random mutations and natural selection are 0 IQ entities, when design requires intelligence. Do you support theistic or alien evolution or something along those lines?

The sudden extinction events and sudden appearance to different species gave birth to the nitrogen cycle, oxygen cycle, phosphorus cycle, and different cycles of life that allowed us to exist today.

Evolution is based on the evidence.

Aight. Give me experimental, replicable empirical cause & effect non-falsified data that supports the foundational claims in the historical hypotheses that evolutionary mechanism are capable of bringing forth multicellular life, 100% of the diversity of species, complex biomechanical organs and biological systems, consciousness, and intelligence from the ancestors of a hypothetical proto-cell randomly through gradual steps.
SlobodnaDusa
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 8:26:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/30/2015 1:04:04 AM, Alpha3141 wrote:
Isn't the theory of Evolution just based on logical fallacies and philosophical beliefs?


By "Evolution" I mean particles to people kind of evolution.


I'm curious to see what people will say and think about this.

Why do you say that?

There is evidence for evolution: it's not perfect, it's not unfalsifiable and we can still speculate, but there is more evidence for it than there is for creationism. You could start by reading this: http://anthro.palomar.edu...

It's quite elementary, but it's a good summary. And it isn't based on logical fallacies and philosophical beliefs, at all.
Mir, ljubav i komunizam
Aran55633
Posts: 110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 10:03:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 7:59:16 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 8/1/2015 4:06:09 AM, Aran55633 wrote:
At 7/30/2015 1:04:04 AM, Alpha3141 wrote:
Isn't the theory of Evolution just based on logical fallacies and philosophical beliefs?


By "Evolution" I mean particles to people kind of evolution.


I'm curious to see what people will say and think about this.

If you substituted the word "creationism" in everywhere you used the term "evolution", you would have been fine.

Well, evolution is equivalent to "slow creationism", so it makes sense I guess.

If we are the "chosen ones" of this god, it doesn't make sense to create an entire universe as grandiose as this, and then place us on a tiny little planet which is dwarfed by this universe to such a mind-boggling degree. Why do it?

Sounds like an argument from ignorance: "I don't see the wisdom, therefore wisdom doesn't exist!".
To display that he is over all things competent for instance.

It's not an argument from ignorance. It's an attempt to challenge the mindset, and get you folks to think critically.

That's perhaps the weakest point I made in that post, but the point remains.
If this god loves us, why doesn't he communicate with us as he supposedly did 2,000 years ago?

Argument from ignorance. Different theistic religions have answers for this question, but I think the most common one would be that the final message is universal and applies to all times and places.

Challenging the mindset.

He would communicate with people living 2,000 years ago,, but not this one? He would display his power for them, but not this one?

At a time when it seems like more people than ever are turning from faith, and many are killing in his name, mum's the word from the big guy...
If he is omniscient, why couldn't he prevent a murder when there were only four people on Earth?

Argument from ignorance. It is seen as a lesson that killing one innocent is similar to killing all of mankind, and saving one life is similar to saving all of mankind.
Challenging the mindset.

If you interpret the Bible literally, you have to except that an omnipotent and omniscient being couldn't prevent a murder among his "chosen" when they numbered but four.

Creationism doesn't explain the twin nested hierarchy, vestigial structures, examples of "bad design", or why over 99% of all the species that have ever existed are now extinct.

Mere hypotheses can explain anything. Here is a geocentric earth model accounting for observations of celestial bodies:
https://www.withfriendship.com...

Organisms that don't fit into the phylogenetic tree are often found. Hence ad hocs such as convergent evolution and punctured equilibrium are invoked to force fit them. This is due to common ancestry being incapable of explaining the data. Does this mean that common ancestry is questioned? Nope, because the first and primary assumption of all evolutionary phylogenetic classification methodologies is that common ancestry is true. Question begging intensives.

Hence, your supposed hierarchy can't count as evidence. Any set of objects, whether biological or not, can be classified hierarchically. You can have a hierarchy for chairs (material, color, manufacture date, etc.), or cars, etc. The fact that life, like pretty much anythings, can be classified in a hierarchically is not an argument and neither does it provide anything new or interesting.
Completely irrelevant. We're not talking about something which is created by man, and therefore IS intelligently designed. We're talking about the idea of something changing, gradually, as a result of pressures placed on them by outside stimuli.

When you observe that birds and non-avian dinosaurs share hundreds of synapomorphies not present in any other groups, and then find that their DNA is more similar than it is to any other group, that is the twin nested hierarchy, and it is very compelling evidence of common ancestry.

The only other plausible explanation is that a supposedly omniscient and benevolent creator designed them in a way that would mislead intellectuals into believing they are derived from one another.

Seems legit.

What do you mean by "vestigial structures"? How can one theologically determine when a certain function is important enough to make it plausible that a Creator would specially design a structure to fulfill it?
Unless you define vestigial as having no function at all. But how can you be certain an apparently functionless structure is really functionless? Hundreds of alleged "vestigial organs" have been shown to be false; as science advances research has shown definite functions. Hence you seem to be arguing from ignorance: "We don"t know what they are so they MUST be vestigial!".
Of course, a change in environment or conditions (like recessive genetics, nutrients, age, etc.) can induce a degradation of body parts (ie. an insect losing wings in a very windy environment, or fish losing their eyes after getting stuck in a pitch-black cave). "if you don"t use it, you lose it", and that is called atrophy. but that is irrelevant as the phenomena can exist regardless of whether there is universal common ancestry or not. If anything that sounds more like devolution; why isn't there a list of structures that are developing into new improved organs? Why is it assumed that these structures are being lost? Because they know they are unable to find evidence for such claims?
There are numerous examples of vestigial structures. Look up a list. You're a big boy, you can do it.

If they don't serve a purpose, a designer wouldn't put them in there.

You said "Design"? But random mutations and natural selection are 0 IQ entities, when design requires intelligence. Do you support theistic or alien evolution or something along those lines?
Notice the quotation marks.

The point is that if that they were designed, it could not be said that they were "intelligently" designed.

The sudden extinction events and sudden appearance to different species gave birth to the nitrogen cycle, oxygen cycle, phosphorus cycle, and different cycles of life that allowed us to exist today.
And yet this omniscient and all-powerful being had to wipe those species out to have a do over so he could get it right after a second (or, in his case, 10 millionth try), and get it as it is now? Why not just make it that way to start with? That was the whole point...

These aren't complicated arguments I'm making, but you still seem to be out of your depth here...

Evolution is based on the evidence.

Aight. Give me experimental, replicable empirical cause & effect non-falsified data that supports the foundational claims in the historical hypotheses that evolutionary mechanism are capable of bringing forth multicellular life, 100% of the diversity of species, complex biomechanical organs and biological systems, consciousness, and intelligence from the ancestors of a hypothetical proto-cell randomly through gradual steps.

There are a number of books dedicated to exactly this purpose, and one of them is Natural Selection in the Wild by Dr. John Endler, which I would recommend reading. But if you read any book on it (Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True, Richard Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth {which I intend to read very soon}, etc.), you should find plenty of evidence.

As for a specific example to be referenced here and now, I would relay you toward Lenski's evolution experiment, but something tells me that you, like all creationists, want examples in "higher" beings.

I would point you again toward the twin nested hierarchy. It represents some of the strongest evidence of common descent.

http://www.sciencedaily.com...