Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

Anti-Darwinism but Pro-Evolutionism

DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2012 2:17:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
My biggest issue with Darwinism is that it believes evolution cannot exist without extinction. That subgroups must die out for the group to evolve.

Humans have clearly evolved since the 1st century AD, which is why we are now taller, amongst other things. We've become taller without the extinction of short people.

Evolution is not depended upon extinction, even though extinction can lead to evolution. Darwinism takes a very narrow view to evolution. Darwinism is like saying "because you can get cancer from smoking, non-smokers can't get cancer". It is false and narrow minded.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2012 2:45:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Except that's not what Darwinism says. It says that groups that are less adaptable die out. Some people like short people. Thus, there are short people. Moreover, there's no reason why short people would be marginalised in a reproductive manner, compared to, say, people who are born without legs, or other genetic mutations (ignoring genetic mutations which occur through random error rather than reproduction) of similar debilitating kinds.

Also, using Darwinism or Evolution on humans is a dangerous step, since natural selection doesn't apply to humans (as I and others argue because of the lack of natural selection. There is a debate whether we are victims of natural selection no longer, or simply that the cogs of evolution turn very, very slowly).
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2012 2:50:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
http://plato.stanford.edu...

Darwinism does not require extinction.

"After we set out the theory in its Darwinian form, we can consider these reactions from those who apparently shared Darwin's philosophical norms about scientific theory, explanation and confirmation.

The theory can be set out as a series of causal elements that, working together, will produce the needed transformations.

1) Species are comprised of individuals that vary ever so slightly from each other with respect to their many traits.
2) Species have a tendency to increase in size over generations at an exponential rate.
3) This tendency, given limited resources, disease, predation, and so on, creates a constant condition of struggle for survival among the members of a species.
4) Some individuals will have variations that give them a slight advantage in this struggle, variations that allow more efficient or better access to resources, greater resistance to disease, greater success at avoiding predation, and so on.
5) These individuals will tend to survive better and leave more offspring.
6) Offspring tend to inherit the variations of their parents.
7) Therefore favorable variations will tend to be passed on more frequently than others, a tendency Darwin labeled "Natural Selection".
8) Over time, especially in a slowly changing environment, this process will cause the character of species to change.
9) Given a long enough period of time, the descendant populations of an ancestor species will differ enough to be classified as different species, a process capable of indefinite iteration. There are, in addition, forces that encourage divergence among descendant populations, and the elimination of intermediate varieties."
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2012 3:07:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/23/2012 2:17:22 PM, DanT wrote:
My biggest issue with Darwinism is that it believes evolution cannot exist without extinction. That subgroups must die out for the group to evolve.

Humans have clearly evolved since the 1st century AD, which is why we are now taller, amongst other things. We've become taller without the extinction of short people.

Evolution is not depended upon extinction, even though extinction can lead to evolution. Darwinism takes a very narrow view to evolution. Darwinism is like saying "because you can get cancer from smoking, non-smokers can't get cancer". It is false and narrow minded.:

Darwin and early Darwinian theory was incorrect, or partially correct, about a lot of things. Extinction is believed to be a part of evolution in the sense that there are more extinct species than there are active species. Others don't really become "extinct" in the traditional sense, but rather are absorbed (see: Neanderthal absorbed by homo sapiens). There has to be losers in the game of life in order for their to be winners. Is that a necessary component? Not in the short-term, but probably very much so in the long-term.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2012 3:32:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/23/2012 3:07:55 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 11/23/2012 2:17:22 PM, DanT wrote:
My biggest issue with Darwinism is that it believes evolution cannot exist without extinction. That subgroups must die out for the group to evolve.

Humans have clearly evolved since the 1st century AD, which is why we are now taller, amongst other things. We've become taller without the extinction of short people.

Evolution is not depended upon extinction, even though extinction can lead to evolution. Darwinism takes a very narrow view to evolution. Darwinism is like saying "because you can get cancer from smoking, non-smokers can't get cancer". It is false and narrow minded.:

Darwin and early Darwinian theory was incorrect, or partially correct, about a lot of things.
I agree. Allot of people call modern theories Darwinism, when Charles Darwin would have rejected those theories. That's like calling the Big Bang or Black Hole Theories "Einsteinism".

Charles Darwin believed that evolution was dependent upon extinction, as it's driving force.

Extinction is believed to be a part of evolution in the sense that there are more extinct species than there are active species.
There are more dead people than living people. Hence birth is depended upon death.
Others don't really become "extinct" in the traditional sense, but rather are absorbed (see: Neanderthal absorbed by homo sapiens).
The fact most people have Neanderthal DNA (or other primitive cousins) is evidence against Darwinism. Their genetic traits live on in homo sapien sapiens.

There has to be losers in the game of life in order for their to be winners.

Not necessarily. The world isn't black and white like that. The world is not separated into winners and losers, but rather there are varying levels of success. Chimpanzees did not lose, but they certainly didn't win at the evolutionary game. Those who don't evolve die, but evolution is not depended upon the weak dieing, but rather the strong surviving is depended upon evolution.

Is that a necessary component? Not in the short-term, but probably very much so in the long-term.

Extinction is not a long term necessary component. A trait that went extinct millenias of years ago, maybe important traits in the future, depending on how our environment changes.
Sure extinction shapes the world we live in today, but even if extinction did not occur, there would still be evolution. The world would just look different.

The archeological evidence confirms this. Along the course of human evolution, our past evolutionary stages lived side by side with later evolutionary stages. Often the past evolutionary stage would give birth to a branch evolutionary stage (or evolutionary cousin), after we evolved (or vise versa).

Imagine if you will, a mother giving birth to a child, than giving birth to a second child 5 years later. The mother than dies in a car crash after the second child is born. The mother did not have to die for her children to be born. Her children do not share her exact DNA, nor does their DNA exactly match their siblings.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2012 5:17:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/23/2012 2:45:08 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Except that's not what Darwinism says. It says that groups that are less adaptable die out.
That is all that Darwinism contributes. Darwin believed that extinction drove evolution. He believed that variations appeared, and through the extinction of certain variations, the species evolved over time. Darwin's conclusion was fallacious; the species did not evolve because other traits died out, but rather the other traits died out because they did not evolve (or rather they evolved undesirable traits).
Some people like short people. Thus, there are short people.
Exactly. Society didn't get taller, because short traits were extinguished; society got taller, because the majority were attracted to taller people.
Moreover, there's no reason why short people would be marginalised in a reproductive manner, compared to, say, people who are born without legs, or other genetic mutations (ignoring genetic mutations which occur through random error rather than reproduction) of similar debilitating kinds.

That is not a genetic mutation, that is a birth defect. It has nothing to do with the mutation of genes, but rather the development of the fetus. An example of a genetic mutation would be Dwarfism. Unlike being born without legs, Dwarfism is an inheritable trait.
Also, using Darwinism or Evolution on humans is a dangerous step, since natural selection doesn't apply to humans (as I and others argue because of the lack of natural selection. There is a debate whether we are victims of natural selection no longer, or simply that the cogs of evolution turn very, very slowly).

Now you are stretching it. If natural selection applies to everything else, than it applies to humans. If there is no natural selection weeding out mutations, than we wouldn't be evolving; according to Charles Darwin.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Wulfyn
Posts: 33
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2012 7:02:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Well there is no such thing as Darwinism - this is a term invented by creationists because they are naturally gullible to arguments from authority, and therefore they find it impossible for information to be able to stand for itself (as science requires) but instead must come from someone authoritative.

Also I find that there is little point in arguing the validity of concepts that are 150 years old. Science moves with the times (that is the point of it) and changes its position based upon new information.

Next it is a poor example to use human height within the last few thousand years as an example of evolution, because it is our diet that has largely accounted for the increase in height. People are not coded to be taller but rather they grow taller because they have much better diets as children and adolescents and thus the action of HGFs is increased.

But extinction is an important part of evolution. There are 2 important types to consider:
1. Extinction where a species is wiped out without the information being passed on
2. Extinction where a species has evolved to a point where it is no longer recognisable as being the same as a previous form.

In modern times we really only recognise 1. as being true extinction, largely because of stories like the extinction of the dinosaurs and of dodos. We don't recognise 2. as being an extinction because we see us as being the same form. For example where is homo erectus now? You could say that they are extinct because there are none of those animals about any more, or you could say that they all changed into something else. But as well as making the 'new' things, what happened to all of the old ones, why were they not also continued to be made?

This is the point that Darwin was making - that the new versions of the species are selected for and the old ones are selected against. So therefore the old versions disappear and the new versions are retained, and thus the net average of the species advances. This is why animals with selective pressures will evolve to be better as the old versions die out and those without selective pressures (crocodiles) tend to stay as they are.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2012 3:02:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/25/2012 7:02:53 AM, Wulfyn wrote:
Well there is no such thing as Darwinism - this is a term invented by creationists because they are naturally gullible to arguments from authority, and therefore they find it impossible for information to be able to stand for itself (as science requires) but instead must come from someone authoritative.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
emospongebob527
Posts: 790
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2012 3:20:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Being a Militant Agnostic, Evolution draws the line, it has JUST enough evidence to make me believe it fully.
"not to toot my own horn (it aint need no tooin if u know what im saying), but my writings on "viciousness: the one true viture (fancy spelling for virtue)" and my poem "A poem I wrote about DDO" put me in a class of my damn own. im just an UNRECONGIZED geniuse" -bananafana
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2012 6:39:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/29/2012 3:20:14 PM, emospongebob527 wrote:
Being a Militant Agnostic, Evolution draws the line, it has JUST enough evidence to make me believe it fully.

But how do you feel about Darwinism? Do you believe that evolution cannot exist without natural selection? Or do you believe that natural selection simply weeds out other evolutionary branches, rather than perpetuating the evolutionary process?
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2012 6:56:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/29/2012 3:20:14 PM, emospongebob527 wrote:
Being a Militant Agnostic, Evolution draws the line, it has JUST enough evidence to make me believe it fully.
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2012 11:06:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/23/2012 2:17:22 PM, DanT wrote:
My biggest issue with Darwinism is that it believes evolution cannot exist without extinction. That subgroups must die out for the group to evolve.

Humans have clearly evolved since the 1st century AD, which is why we are now taller, amongst other things. We've become taller without the extinction of short people.

Evolution is not depended upon extinction, even though extinction can lead to evolution. Darwinism takes a very narrow view to evolution. Darwinism is like saying "because you can get cancer from smoking, non-smokers can't get cancer". It is false and narrow minded.

Nice strawman, brah.

Species go extinct if another creature pushes them out of their niche. You can't have infinite species on Earth.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
Muted
Posts: 377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2012 8:58:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/30/2012 11:06:13 AM, MouthWash wrote:
At 11/23/2012 2:17:22 PM, DanT wrote:
My biggest issue with Darwinism is that it believes evolution cannot exist without extinction. That subgroups must die out for the group to evolve.

Humans have clearly evolved since the 1st century AD, which is why we are now taller, amongst other things. We've become taller without the extinction of short people.

Evolution is not depended upon extinction, even though extinction can lead to evolution. Darwinism takes a very narrow view to evolution. Darwinism is like saying "because you can get cancer from smoking, non-smokers can't get cancer". It is false and narrow minded.

Nice strawman, brah.

Species go extinct if another creature pushes them out of their niche. You can't have infinite species on Earth.

You can't have infinite species only because of a lack of space. By the way, the late Gould once said, "...the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem..."
(evolucion.fcien.edu.uy/Lecturas/GouldyEldredge1993.pdf)

That doesn't mean species have to die out, however.
Exterminate!!!!!!-Dalek.

The ability to speak does not make you a competent debater.

One does not simply do the rain dance.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2012 2:29:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
We're taller because of bettering health conditions.

No dramatic evolutionary changes occur in such a small time frame.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2012 3:44:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/2/2012 2:29:09 PM, FREEDO wrote:
We're taller because of bettering health conditions.

I disagree
No dramatic evolutionary changes occur in such a small time frame.

It's true that no "dramatic " evolutionary change has occurred, but height is not a dramatic evolutionary change. We are constantly evolving.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2012 4:36:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/2/2012 3:44:41 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/2/2012 2:29:09 PM, FREEDO wrote:
We're taller because of bettering health conditions.

I disagree
No dramatic evolutionary changes occur in such a small time frame.

It's true that no "dramatic " evolutionary change has occurred, but height is not a dramatic evolutionary change. We are constantly evolving.

Your range of height is determined genetics and where you fall in that range is determined by nutrition and health.

Evolution's basic definition is changes in population genotype frequencies over time, so it would be correct to say our height has been evolving.

Your general claim regards whether that genetic differences by phenotype frequency is of a magnitude able to dwarf the the population's possible changes due to nutrition/health within a few thousand years.

It's an empirically feasible claim, just a matter of evidence.
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2012 5:33:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/23/2012 2:17:22 PM, DanT wrote:
My biggest issue with Darwinism is that it believes evolution cannot exist without extinction. That subgroups must die out for the group to evolve.

Humans have clearly evolved since the 1st century AD, which is why we are now taller, amongst other things. We've become taller without the extinction of short people.

It could be that humans are now taller because they aren't as malnourished as they were in the 1st century.

(Even if it were true, it would be an example of micro evolution, as opposed to macro evolution. It would take time for extinction.
In the human world being short is not disadvantageous any more. humans have kind of messed up the normal evolution that took place in animals.)
I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

http://www.twainquotes.com... , http://thewritecorner.wordpress.com... , http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com...