Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

Describe how evolution works

Discipulus_Didicit
Posts: 3,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 8:44:17 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Please read completely before replying.

I would like for a creationist to describe to me, in as much detail as they possibly can and in their own words, how evolution actually works. I see many silly things said by creationists which makes me think they do not actually understand the theory of evolution, such as "Dogs cannot give birth to whales therefore evolution is wrong" (although in reality such an event would completely disprove evolution) or "evolution is a random process" Another example is the infamous crocoduck...

My hypothesis is that they say these things because they do not actually understand how evolutionary theory works. Let's see if I am right. Please do not try to convince anyone that evolutionary theory is right or wrong, as that would defeat the purpose of this thread. Just describe it from a neutral standpoint.
Cobalt - You could be scum too.
Matt - I suppose. But I also might not be.

Kiri - Yeah, I don't know what DD is doing.
Vaarka - He's doin'a thingy do

DD - The best advice most often goes unheeded.
Wise Man - KYS, DD.
DD - Case in point ^
NothingSpecial99
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 9:15:33 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 8:44:17 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
Please read completely before replying.

I would like for a creationist to describe to me, in as much detail as they possibly can and in their own words, how evolution actually works. I see many silly things said by creationists which makes me think they do not actually understand the theory of evolution, such as "Dogs cannot give birth to whales therefore evolution is wrong" (although in reality such an event would completely disprove evolution) or "evolution is a random process" Another example is the infamous crocoduck...

My hypothesis is that they say these things because they do not actually understand how evolutionary theory works. Let's see if I am right. Please do not try to convince anyone that evolutionary theory is right or wrong, as that would defeat the purpose of this thread. Just describe it from a neutral standpoint.

Very well, I as a creationist will describe how evolution supposedly works.

Natural selection, the process in which organisms with favorable traits that give them a survival advantage in their environment are selected and those without such traits die off.

Mutations, random copying mistakes during the DNA replication process that somehow creates functional information within the genome.

It is this mutation/selection process over millions or billions of years that supposedly transformed microbes into microbiologists, dinosaurs into birds, and wolf-like creatures into whales.
"Check your facts, not your privilege" - Christina Hoff Summers

If you go to jail for Tax Evasion, you're living off of Taxes as a result of not paying Taxes

"Facts don't care about your feelings" - Ben Shapiro
chucklehead
Posts: 44
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 9:27:51 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 8:44:17 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
Please read completely before replying.

I would like for a creationist to describe to me, in as much detail as they possibly can and in their own words, how evolution actually works. I see many silly things said by creationists which makes me think they do not actually understand the theory of evolution, such as "Dogs cannot give birth to whales therefore evolution is wrong" (although in reality such an event would completely disprove evolution) or "evolution is a random process" Another example is the infamous crocoduck...

My hypothesis is that they say these things because they do not actually understand how evolutionary theory works. Let's see if I am right. Please do not try to convince anyone that evolutionary theory is right or wrong, as that would defeat the purpose of this thread. Just describe it from a neutral standpoint.

im a believer in creation , but im into theistic evolution so im not sure I qualify ?
Discipulus_Didicit
Posts: 3,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 4:13:28 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 9:15:33 PM, NothingSpecial99 wrote:
Very well, I as a creationist will describe how evolution supposedly works.

Natural selection, the process in which organisms with favorable traits that give them a survival advantage in their environment are selected and those without such traits die off.

If by selected you mean more likely to survive due to being better adapted to the environment then this is an accurate enough description of natural selection.

Mutations, random copying mistakes during the DNA replication process that somehow creates functional information within the genome.

What do you mean by this? The 'random copying mistakes' you mention is an easy concept to grasp, but what do you mean by genome information? Do you mean the length of the genome? The physical complexity of the phenotypes it forms? The actual chemical composition of the genome itself? The word 'information' by itself is just a bit too vague for me to understand what you mean by it in this context, could you please clarify?

It is this mutation/selection process over millions or billions of years that supposedly transformed microbes into microbiologists, dinosaurs into birds, and wolf-like creatures into whales.

Well it seems that you don't labor under the delusion of many other creationists that "evolution says cats can lay eggs that hatch into worms and dogs can give birth to lions" or other such nonsense. This is a good thing.
Cobalt - You could be scum too.
Matt - I suppose. But I also might not be.

Kiri - Yeah, I don't know what DD is doing.
Vaarka - He's doin'a thingy do

DD - The best advice most often goes unheeded.
Wise Man - KYS, DD.
DD - Case in point ^
Discipulus_Didicit
Posts: 3,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 4:23:45 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 9:27:51 PM, chucklehead wrote:
im a believer in creation , but im into theistic evolution so im not sure I qualify ?

No, not what I was looking for. Though I did not mention above I, unlike the majority of people whom accept evolution, am an atheist.

However, if you would like to share your thoughts on theistic evolution that may be something I would find interesting. I personally believe that natural evolution is more likely than theistic evolution, but the idea of theistic evolution is at least plausible to me, unlike creationism.
Cobalt - You could be scum too.
Matt - I suppose. But I also might not be.

Kiri - Yeah, I don't know what DD is doing.
Vaarka - He's doin'a thingy do

DD - The best advice most often goes unheeded.
Wise Man - KYS, DD.
DD - Case in point ^
chucklehead
Posts: 44
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 12:40:30 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 4:23:45 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
At 1/18/2016 9:27:51 PM, chucklehead wrote:
im a believer in creation , but im into theistic evolution so im not sure I qualify ?

No, not what I was looking for. Though I did not mention above I, unlike the majority of people whom accept evolution, am an atheist.

However, if you would like to share your thoughts on theistic evolution that may be something I would find interesting. I personally believe that natural evolution is more likely than theistic evolution, but the idea of theistic evolution is at least plausible to me, unlike creationism.

I'll give ya the short answer . I find no conflict between genesis and evolution .even applied evolutionary theory (selective breeding) is in the bible .
we have witnessed "kinds from a kind" -ring species
if you want a step by step , im willing to , but id rather make a thread about it in the religion section as this would be more to do with comparing scriptures and such .
there is no reason to change the science or to change scripture in my opinion , just one's perspective ... and a general belief in God of course helps ...lol.
to me , I FEEL there is a God , I know , not admissible as evidence . ... but I feel it in my bones . imo , the equation of existence has an author .
Danb6177
Posts: 433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 5:03:02 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 8:44:17 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
Please read completely before replying.

I would like for a creationist to describe to me, in as much detail as they possibly can and in their own words, how evolution actually works. I see many silly things said by creationists which makes me think they do not actually understand the theory of evolution, such as "Dogs cannot give birth to whales therefore evolution is wrong" (although in reality such an event would completely disprove evolution) or "evolution is a random process" Another example is the infamous crocoduck...

My hypothesis is that they say these things because they do not actually understand how evolutionary theory works. Let's see if I am right. Please do not try to convince anyone that evolutionary theory is right or wrong, as that would defeat the purpose of this thread. Just describe it from a neutral standpoint.

This is funny. Its the same way I open up a debate with an evolutionist. I ask them to explain evolution in their own words and its pretty funny usually what I hear. Most evolutionist i debate with are not so certain of what they believe or why they believe it as long as its not that god stuff.

Not saying this describes yourself, just found the similarity humorous. Ok...carry on
Discipulus_Didicit
Posts: 3,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2016 12:27:16 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 5:03:02 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
This is funny. Its the same way I open up a debate with an evolutionist. I ask them to explain evolution in their own words and its pretty funny usually what I hear. Most evolutionist i debate with are not so certain of what they believe or why they believe it as long as its not that god stuff.

Not saying this describes yourself, just found the similarity humorous. Ok...carry on

Cute.
Cobalt - You could be scum too.
Matt - I suppose. But I also might not be.

Kiri - Yeah, I don't know what DD is doing.
Vaarka - He's doin'a thingy do

DD - The best advice most often goes unheeded.
Wise Man - KYS, DD.
DD - Case in point ^
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2016 5:04:49 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 5:03:02 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 1/18/2016 8:44:17 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
Please read completely before replying.

I would like for a creationist to describe to me, in as much detail as they possibly can and in their own words, how evolution actually works. I see many silly things said by creationists which makes me think they do not actually understand the theory of evolution, such as "Dogs cannot give birth to whales therefore evolution is wrong" (although in reality such an event would completely disprove evolution) or "evolution is a random process" Another example is the infamous crocoduck...

My hypothesis is that they say these things because they do not actually understand how evolutionary theory works. Let's see if I am right. Please do not try to convince anyone that evolutionary theory is right or wrong, as that would defeat the purpose of this thread. Just describe it from a neutral standpoint.

This is funny. Its the same way I open up a debate with an evolutionist. I ask them to explain evolution in their own words and its pretty funny usually what I hear. Most evolutionist i debate with are not so certain of what they believe or why they believe it as long as its not that god stuff.

Not saying this describes yourself, just found the similarity humorous. Ok...carry on

Thats probably because most evolutionists you talk to, arent actually scientists.

Much like how the fact that I accept that Cars exist and use and support the usage of cars, doesnt mean I can accurately describe how it works.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2016 5:07:00 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 12:40:30 AM, chucklehead wrote:
At 1/19/2016 4:23:45 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
At 1/18/2016 9:27:51 PM, chucklehead wrote:
im a believer in creation , but im into theistic evolution so im not sure I qualify ?

No, not what I was looking for. Though I did not mention above I, unlike the majority of people whom accept evolution, am an atheist.

However, if you would like to share your thoughts on theistic evolution that may be something I would find interesting. I personally believe that natural evolution is more likely than theistic evolution, but the idea of theistic evolution is at least plausible to me, unlike creationism.

I'll give ya the short answer . I find no conflict between genesis and evolution .even applied evolutionary theory (selective breeding) is in the bible .
we have witnessed "kinds from a kind" -ring species
if you want a step by step , im willing to , but id rather make a thread about it in the religion section as this would be more to do with comparing scriptures and such .
there is no reason to change the science or to change scripture in my opinion , just one's perspective ... and a general belief in God of course helps ...lol.
to me , I FEEL there is a God , I know , not admissible as evidence . ... but I feel it in my bones . imo , the equation of existence has an author .

You know, i felt Zeus in my balls once... Atleast i think i did. It felt like a tingling sensation, and i shouted "PRAISE ZEUS". My classmates were surprised, to say the least, and so was my teacher.
keithprosser
Posts: 1,975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2016 6:24:02 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
Natural selection, the process in which organisms with favorable traits that give them a survival advantage in their environment are selected and those without such traits die off.


If by selected you mean more likely to survive due to being better adapted to the environment then this is an accurate enough description of natural selection.


Hmm. As a nit-pick, as far as I know no matter how well adapted, selected or has favourable traits an organism is it still dies. The issue is not survival advantage per se but reproductive advantage. An adaptation that produced a rabbit that lived for a hundred years but was sterile would be eliminated by natural selection.

As a non-creationist, I'd say evolution works because offspring are similar but not identical to their parents, and it is the offspring better suited to their environment that mainly produce the generation after them. Given the way organisms reproduce evolution cannot 'not work'.
Discipulus_Didicit
Posts: 3,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2016 3:17:52 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/29/2016 6:24:02 AM, keithprosser wrote:
Natural selection, the process in which organisms with favorable traits that give them a survival advantage in their environment are selected and those without such traits die off.


If by selected you mean more likely to survive due to being better adapted to the environment then this is an accurate enough description of natural selection.


Hmm. As a nit-pick, as far as I know no matter how well adapted, selected or has favourable traits an organism is it still dies. The issue is not survival advantage per se but reproductive advantage. An adaptation that produced a rabbit that lived for a hundred years but was sterile would be eliminated by natural selection.

I should have been more clear. When I said "more likely to survive" I was referring to the population being more likely to survive, not necessarily that the individuals are.
Cobalt - You could be scum too.
Matt - I suppose. But I also might not be.

Kiri - Yeah, I don't know what DD is doing.
Vaarka - He's doin'a thingy do

DD - The best advice most often goes unheeded.
Wise Man - KYS, DD.
DD - Case in point ^
keithprosser
Posts: 1,975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2016 5:45:14 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
I guess that was what you meant, but its all too easy to be misunderstood.

So as you understand the mechanics of how it works, perhaps the next step is to describe why it doesn't work!
Discipulus_Didicit
Posts: 3,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 1:55:48 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/4/2016 5:45:14 AM, keithprosser wrote:
So as you understand the mechanics of how it works, perhaps the next step is to describe why it doesn't work!

No thanks. Taking the devils advocate position is only interesting to me when the other side at least tries to make logical sense. This is not one of those cases.
Cobalt - You could be scum too.
Matt - I suppose. But I also might not be.

Kiri - Yeah, I don't know what DD is doing.
Vaarka - He's doin'a thingy do

DD - The best advice most often goes unheeded.
Wise Man - KYS, DD.
DD - Case in point ^
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 2:22:27 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 8:44:17 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
Please read completely before replying.

I would like for a creationist to describe to me, in as much detail as they possibly can and in their own words, how evolution actually works. I see many silly things said by creationists which makes me think they do not actually understand the theory of evolution, such as "Dogs cannot give birth to whales therefore evolution is wrong" (although in reality such an event would completely disprove evolution) or "evolution is a random process" Another example is the infamous crocoduck...

My hypothesis is that they say these things because they do not actually understand how evolutionary theory works. Let's see if I am right. Please do not try to convince anyone that evolutionary theory is right or wrong, as that would defeat the purpose of this thread. Just describe it from a neutral standpoint.

I find it highly unlikely that any creationist, or ID proponent that is hiding behind the vague terminology of ID to hide the fact that they believe in special creation is going to seriously respond to this in any detail.

The reason is pretty simple.

If such a person had enough education, information and honesty to rationally and correctly portray evolution, evolutionary history the details of it's processes, how it operates and what evidence is used to support it; they wouldn't be a creationist any longer.

Most Creationists here either have no functional understanding of evolution, or deliberately and constantly misrepresent the functional operation of evolution and the evidence that underpins it.

If they post here, they will have to concede that most of the arguments they have used thus far are necessarily dishonest, because they say one thing when arguing against evolution and then come here and state another.

Moreover, even if they hadn't before, there is an element of denial, that some aspects of evolution that are so hard to explain and so undermine their own position that they are unable to mentally admit that such elements even exist.

A good examples are the hierarchical relationships in DNA between organisms. No creationist I have ever seen here has EVER been able to accurately describe the nature and detail of what those measured, evidenced and factual relationships between DNA sequences actually are, and for good reason.

If they did, they would have to admit that their arguments for "common DNA means common designer" are absolutely unfounded, and ridiculously misrepresentative of what is actually there.
Discipulus_Didicit
Posts: 3,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 12:48:17 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 2:22:27 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
Most Creationists here either have no functional understanding of evolution, or deliberately and constantly misrepresent the functional operation of evolution and the evidence that underpins it.

If they post here, they will have to concede that most of the arguments they have used thus far are necessarily dishonest, because they say one thing when arguing against evolution and then come here and state another.

Exactly why I made this thread. I was hopeful when that first response post came, but as soon as I asked them to go into any sort of detail they ignored me. I am not very surprised really, just disappointed.
Cobalt - You could be scum too.
Matt - I suppose. But I also might not be.

Kiri - Yeah, I don't know what DD is doing.
Vaarka - He's doin'a thingy do

DD - The best advice most often goes unheeded.
Wise Man - KYS, DD.
DD - Case in point ^
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 2,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 1:49:34 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 12:48:17 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
At 2/5/2016 2:22:27 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
Most Creationists here either have no functional understanding of evolution, or deliberately and constantly misrepresent the functional operation of evolution and the evidence that underpins it.

If they post here, they will have to concede that most of the arguments they have used thus far are necessarily dishonest, because they say one thing when arguing against evolution and then come here and state another.

Exactly why I made this thread. I was hopeful when that first response post came, but as soon as I asked them to go into any sort of detail they ignored me. I am not very surprised really, just disappointed.

By assumptions, if we new and could view any days 1 million years ago ,1 billion years ago. 2 bill. Evolution works by not knowing. You can't view it , only assume it. But I am about to open my 7th wild turkey can . So I'm not sure. Just 1 quick question, if the world is here in 1 million years . Could we view the things we do today because of technology. Like it should be easy to put a USB drive into something and view stuff hey?
I think is suss as , That we can only collect this kind of great hi quality data, film footage . In the last 100 or 200 to be kind years. It leads me to belive the world dose not exsist until you are born. I've been working on the fact that our parents made us there for the was a worl without you in it, and facts like the pyramids are 4000 + years old. Maybe in 2 more piss cans time I can Crack it. Whiskey makes me brilliant.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 5:03:21 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 12:48:17 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
At 2/5/2016 2:22:27 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
Most Creationists here either have no functional understanding of evolution, or deliberately and constantly misrepresent the functional operation of evolution and the evidence that underpins it.

If they post here, they will have to concede that most of the arguments they have used thus far are necessarily dishonest, because they say one thing when arguing against evolution and then come here and state another.

Exactly why I made this thread. I was hopeful when that first response post came, but as soon as I asked them to go into any sort of detail they ignored me. I am not very surprised really, just disappointed.

lol, you're disappointed.

So you know your 19th century fairy tales better than the next guy. Bully for you. Evolution is to real science what comic books are to Shakespeare.
This space for rent.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2016 7:42:15 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 1/18/2016 8:44:17 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
Please read completely before replying.

I would like for a creationist to describe to me, in as much detail as they possibly can and in their own words, how evolution actually works. I see many silly things said by creationists which makes me think they do not actually understand the theory of evolution, such as "Dogs cannot give birth to whales therefore evolution is wrong" (although in reality such an event would completely disprove evolution) or "evolution is a random process" Another example is the infamous crocoduck...

My hypothesis is that they say these things because they do not actually understand how evolutionary theory works. Let's see if I am right. Please do not try to convince anyone that evolutionary theory is right or wrong, as that would defeat the purpose of this thread. Just describe it from a neutral standpoint.

Read Myers' Darwins Doubt, there you see a very detailed description of natural selections claims and presumed processes by a writer who doesn't accept evolution.

Since Myers'book received lots of endorsements by strong advocates of evolution, it's pretty clear he has a very sound understanding of the hypothetical process.

http://www.darwinsdoubt.com...

Here's just a few:

"It is hard for us paleontologists, steeped as we are in a tradition of Darwinian analysis, to admit that neo-Darwinian explanations for the Cambrian explosion have failed miserably. New data acquired in recent years, instead of solving Darwin"s dilemma, have rather made it worse. Meyer describes the dimensions of the problem with clarity and precision. His book is a game changer for the study of evolution and points us in the right direction as we seek a new theory for the origin of animals."

"Stephen C. Meyer"s "Darwin"s Doubt" is a truly remarkable book. Within its 413 pages of text are four tightly woven interrelated arguments. Using 753 references, he presents evidence associated with the serious weaknesses of materialistic theories of biological evolution, and positive evidence for the theory of intelligent design"Meyer"s attack is really against what is called "macroevolution" (large scale population change). Michael Behe (in his "Edge of Evolution") points out that there is abundant evidence for "microevolution" (smaller population change), but there is a boundary at which the evidence for microevolution stops and evidence for macroevolution either doesn"t exist, or any clues that do exist are beset with problems so serious that explanatory attempts boil down to "just-so-stories". This leaves macroevolution sitting atop a boundary (or wall) with an outlook no better that that of Humpty Dumpty."

"Darwin"s Doubt is an intriguing exploration of one of the most remarkable periods in the evolutionary history of life"the rapid efflorescence of complex body plans written in the fossils of the Burgess Shale . . . No matter what convictions one holds about evolution, Darwinism, or intelligent design, Darwin"s Doubt is a book that should be read, engaged, and discussed."

Of course the book along with all the endorsements will be rejected out of hand by this forums usual suspects - wait n see!

Harry.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2016 7:51:19 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 1/22/2016 5:04:49 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 1/20/2016 5:03:02 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 1/18/2016 8:44:17 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
Please read completely before replying.

I would like for a creationist to describe to me, in as much detail as they possibly can and in their own words, how evolution actually works. I see many silly things said by creationists which makes me think they do not actually understand the theory of evolution, such as "Dogs cannot give birth to whales therefore evolution is wrong" (although in reality such an event would completely disprove evolution) or "evolution is a random process" Another example is the infamous crocoduck...

My hypothesis is that they say these things because they do not actually understand how evolutionary theory works. Let's see if I am right. Please do not try to convince anyone that evolutionary theory is right or wrong, as that would defeat the purpose of this thread. Just describe it from a neutral standpoint.

This is funny. Its the same way I open up a debate with an evolutionist. I ask them to explain evolution in their own words and its pretty funny usually what I hear. Most evolutionist i debate with are not so certain of what they believe or why they believe it as long as its not that god stuff.

Not saying this describes yourself, just found the similarity humorous. Ok...carry on

Thats probably because most evolutionists you talk to, arent actually scientists.

Much like how the fact that I accept that Cars exist and use and support the usage of cars, doesnt mean I can accurately describe how it works.

Funny. I'm not a mechanic but I can accurately describe how a car works. I can even repair some failures that occur.

Good analogy of how even when a person is not a "professional" they may have the intellect, aptitude and experience to make some critical remarks.