Total Posts:127|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Dispelling "Problems" With Evolution AMA

MagicAintReal
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2016 2:00:55 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
I've been confronted with many people on this site who are anti-evolution, which is fine, but their "problems" with evolution are nearly always based on misrepresentation, misunderstanding, or complete oblivion, so I figured that I'd open up this forum for those who claim to have these "problems" with evolution, so that we can put them to bed.

That said, Ask Me Anything about evolution.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2016 2:17:04 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/13/2016 2:00:55 PM, MagicAintReal wrote:
I've been confronted with many people on this site who are anti-evolution, which is fine, but their "problems" with evolution are nearly always based on misrepresentation, misunderstanding, or complete oblivion, so I figured that I'd open up this forum for those who claim to have these "problems" with evolution, so that we can put them to bed.

That said, Ask Me Anything about evolution.

Whew - you scared me. I thought the American Medical Association was going political. That could be catastrophic, since medicine obviously is an intelligent design driven discipline. Medicine is 100% about assuming the body is supposed to work a certain way and finding ways to restore correct function or compensate for lost function.

Medicine spends untold billions trying to prevent the natural course of mutation. Medicine spends untold billions trying to prevent our species from drifting from it's current functionality. So yeah, let's leave the medical profession out of this dreadful train wreck of bad science.
This space for rent.
MagicAintReal
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2016 2:40:58 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Whew - you scared me. I thought the American Medical Association was going political.

That was genuinely funny.

That could be catastrophic, since medicine obviously is an intelligent design driven discipline.

Nope, if life were *intelligently* designed, there wouldn't be a need for medicine, because that intelligence would have made organisms free from contracting ailments/not made ailments...instead we have unintelligent immune systems susceptible to other unintelligent pathogens supposedly created by your designer.

Not really asking me anything are you...

Medicine is 100% about assuming the body is supposed to work a certain way and finding ways to restore correct function or compensate for lost function.

Nope.
Medicine is about maintaining homeostasis, not assuming how the body works a certain way...homeostasis is relative to each individual.

Medicine spends untold billions trying to prevent the natural course of mutation.

Yep, have you heard of MRSA?
The bacteria are now antibiotic resistant, thanks a lot mutation.

Medicine spends untold billions trying to prevent our species from drifting from it's current functionality. So yeah, let's leave the medical profession out of this dreadful train wreck of bad science.

How is evolution bad science?
...ironic that I have to ask the questions in an AMA, but whatevs.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,663
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2016 3:37:05 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/13/2016 2:17:04 PM, v3nesl wrote:

Whew - you scared me. I thought the American Medical Association was going political. That could be catastrophic, since medicine obviously is an intelligent design driven discipline. Medicine is 100% about assuming the body is supposed to work a certain way and finding ways to restore correct function or compensate for lost function.

Medicine spends untold billions trying to prevent the natural course of mutation. Medicine spends untold billions trying to prevent our species from drifting from it's current functionality. So yeah, let's leave the medical profession out of this dreadful train wreck of bad science.

Medical practices are geared towards maintaining homeostasis (as MAR stated), which is (a) different to varying degrees between individuals and (b) not an absolute, determined status because the state at which homeostasis can change. To claim "medicine is obviously ID" is an empty, subjective statement, and your statements reflect nothing that would be different under the evolutionary model.

While the evolutionary model doesn't really pertain to an individual's physiology, the model is employed in other aspects such as in the application of antibiotics. There's a reason that it's bad to hit everything with antibiotics, and in the medical field, that it's a calculated action, because if the antibiotic doesn't destroy the infection, then the bacterium will evolve to become resistant to antibiotics, which can potentially doom the patient.

"A bacterium is resistant to a drug when it has changed in some way that either protects it from the action of the drug or neutralizes the drug. Any bacterium that survives an antibiotic treatment can then multiply and pass on its resistant properties. Also, some bacteria can transfer their drug-resistant properties to other bacteria - as if passing along a cheat sheet to help each other survive."
(http://www.mayoclinic.org...)

Some other employments of the simple principles of the evolutionary model in the medical field are seen in vaccines and in combating infection diseases. For example:

"[T]here are less obvious ways in which evolutionary principles apply to infectious diseases. It has been known for a long time that sickle-cell trait provides resistance to malaria (the blood cells are less hospitable to the P. falciparum protozoan parasite that is one cause of malaria). This explains the persistence of sickle cell disease in populations where malaria is endemic."
(https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org...)
(http://www.pbs.org...)
v3nesl
Posts: 4,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2016 4:28:14 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/13/2016 2:40:58 PM, MagicAintReal wrote:
Whew - you scared me. I thought the American Medical Association was going political.

That was genuinely funny.

That could be catastrophic, since medicine obviously is an intelligent design driven discipline.

Nope, if life were *intelligently* designed, there wouldn't be a need for medicine, because that intelligence would have made organisms free from contracting ailments/not made ailments...

No, and this happens ALL THE TIME, where you conflate some straw man version of God with the generic concept of design.

It's not even a straw man concept of God, it's redefining the whole concept of reliable cause and effect, so it's a cosmos none of us can even imagine. It's just nonsense, really, the 5 year old complaining that the pitcher missed his bat.


Nope.
Medicine is about maintaining homeostasis, ...

Yeah, I'm always calling up the doc and saying "Doc, you gotta do something about my homeostasis! "

Medicine spends untold billions trying to prevent the natural course of mutation.

Yep, have you heard of MRSA?
The bacteria are now antibiotic resistant, thanks a lot mutation.


Hello? Do you not realize you are making my point? Engage brain, please.

Medicine spends untold billions trying to prevent our species from drifting from it's current functionality. So yeah, let's leave the medical profession out of this dreadful train wreck of bad science.

How is evolution bad science?

Well, if you don't mind it being wrong in its central claim (UCD), and useless in its other claims, it's great science.
This space for rent.
MagicAintReal
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2016 4:43:14 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
No, and this happens ALL THE TIME, where you conflate some straw man version of God with the generic concept of design.

I'm sorry, you said "intelligent" design, no?
What's intelligent about designing something susceptible to attacks that you've also designed?
It's just not indicative of an intelligence, unless you wish to admit flaws in your designer.

It's not even a straw man concept of God, it's redefining the whole concept of reliable cause and effect, so it's a cosmos none of us can even imagine. It's just nonsense, really, the 5 year old complaining that the pitcher missed his bat.

No, there was no redefining.
You said that medicine was ID driven, so i pointed out that medicine doesn't indicate an "intelligent" design at all, but if it did, it would indicate an imperfect, unprepared, unintelligent designer, which is not under the ID philosophy as far as i know.

Yeah, I'm always calling up the doc and saying "Doc, you gotta do something about my homeostasis! "

Yeah, sounds right to me.
If you have an ailment, your homeostasis is compromised.
Simply because you don't use the big word, doesn't mean that's not what you want to say to your doctor.

Hello? Do you not realize you are making my point? Engage brain, please.

Because MRSA have, through mutation, developed a resistance to Methicillin, I'm making your point that medicine is ID driven?
I'm baffled by your logic, and it's funny that you told me to engage my brain, when you have shown a lack of engagement with yours.
MRSA shows that bacteria evolve and adapt COUNTER to ID, payaso.

Well, if you don't mind it being wrong in its central claim (UCD), and useless in its other claims, it's great science.

How is universal common descent wrong?
What claims of evolution are useless?

Why do anti-evolution people think that by asserting something they've made an argument?
This is particularly unintelligent to do, and it is ironic that this mentality is so pervasive in a movement called "intelligent" design...what a crock.
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2016 5:34:25 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/13/2016 2:00:55 PM, MagicAintReal wrote:
I've been confronted with many people on this site who are anti-evolution, which is fine, but their "problems" with evolution are nearly always based on misrepresentation, misunderstanding, or complete oblivion, so I figured that I'd open up this forum for those who claim to have these "problems" with evolution, so that we can put them to bed.

That said, Ask Me Anything about evolution.

Why is it so pro - human?
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
MagicAintReal
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2016 5:45:37 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Why is it so pro - human?

I don't think I understand the question.
Do you mean, why did humans evolve to become more intelligent than other organisms?

The characteristics that allowed our particular species to live long enough to successfully reproduce included the neural wherewithal that elevated our intelligence.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2016 6:23:38 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/13/2016 4:43:14 PM, MagicAintReal wrote:
No, and this happens ALL THE TIME, where you conflate some straw man version of God with the generic concept of design.

I'm sorry, you said "intelligent" design, no?
What's intelligent about designing something susceptible to attacks that you've also designed?

So would you say the designer of chess was non-intelligent?

If you have an ailment, your homeostasis is compromised.

Well, ok, let's work with that - so medicine seeks stasis. It seeks to prevent evolution.


Because MRSA have, through mutation, developed a resistance to Methicillin, I'm making your point that medicine is ID driven?
I'm baffled by your logic,

But lucky for you, I'm here to help you. MRSA is bad. Antibiotic resistance is bad. Medicine sees evolution as the enemy.

MRSA shows that bacteria evolve and adapt COUNTER to ID, payaso.


It's not counter to ID. You're really displaying an incredibly naive and simplistic mindset in this thread.

What claims of evolution are useless?


What claims are useful? Even your beloved antibiotic resistance thing - how is it useful to say that biotics mutate? What are you supposed to do with that info that you wouldn't do with any other model?
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2016 6:25:23 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/13/2016 5:45:37 PM, MagicAintReal wrote:
Why is it so pro - human?

I don't think I understand the question.
Do you mean, why did humans evolve to become more intelligent than other organisms?

The characteristics that allowed our particular species to live long enough to successfully reproduce included the neural wherewithal that elevated our intelligence.

One word refutation: Cockroach.
This space for rent.
MagicAintReal
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2016 6:39:03 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
So would you say the designer of chess was non-intelligent?

Would you say that the designer of chess intended for chess pieces to die?
Nope. Living or dying or being attacked for that matter would not affect the chess piece's existence, would it?

But for things that cease to be if attacked enough, designing them in that way is a sign of not being intelligent...you usually have better analogies than that.

Well, ok, let's work with that - so medicine seeks stasis. It seeks to prevent evolution.

Well, you're actually right there.
By limiting the filtering process of natural selection, medicine has prevented evolution.
Doesn't mean that medicein doesn't use evolution to solve medical problems, though.

But lucky for you, I'm here to help you. MRSA is bad. Antibiotic resistance is bad. Medicine sees evolution as the enemy.

In the case of evolving bacteria, yes, you're right.

It's not counter to ID. You're really displaying an incredibly naive and simplistic mindset in this thread.

Explain how it's not counter to ID, and I don't care if you think my mindset is simplistic, because you've simply asserted something without backing it up.

What claims are useful? Even your beloved antibiotic resistance thing - how is it useful to say that biotics mutate? What are you supposed to do with that info that you wouldn't do with any other model?

To know how harmful biotics adapt and contribute to our health.
If we know the mechanism that makes these biotics resistant, we can try to combat that and save lives.
MagicAintReal
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2016 6:40:33 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
The characteristics that allowed our particular species to live long enough to successfully reproduce included the neural wherewithal that elevated our intelligence.

One word refutation: Cockroach.

Cockroaches didn't need as much intelligent wherewithal to live long enough to reproduce successfully as humans did...your one word response sucks btw.
janesix
Posts: 3,465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2016 6:52:31 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/13/2016 2:00:55 PM, MagicAintReal wrote:
I've been confronted with many people on this site who are anti-evolution, which is fine, but their "problems" with evolution are nearly always based on misrepresentation, misunderstanding, or complete oblivion, so I figured that I'd open up this forum for those who claim to have these "problems" with evolution, so that we can put them to bed.

That said, Ask Me Anything about evolution.

Where did the Cambrian fauna come from? Did they all evolve from sponges and worms?

How do you get from a worm to a trilobite, and where is the evidence?
Chaosism
Posts: 2,663
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2016 6:57:39 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/13/2016 6:25:23 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/13/2016 5:45:37 PM, MagicAintReal wrote:
Why is it so pro - human?

I don't think I understand the question.
Do you mean, why did humans evolve to become more intelligent than other organisms?

The characteristics that allowed our particular species to live long enough to successfully reproduce included the neural wherewithal that elevated our intelligence.

One word refutation: Cockroach.

According to the theory, our level of intellect emerged as a result of environmental pressures to which we were subjected to; a culmination of selected mutations that compounded and produced a physiology/psychology that granted us a distinct advantage towards survival and reproduction. If every organism followed the "path most traveled", then the competition for survival would be virtually insurmountable.

The cockroach is the result of a different environmental pressures (which includes competition with other organisms), which led to the selection of different mutations which have produced a radically different organism with it's own advantages that granted it advantages towards survival and reproduction.

"Survival of the fittest" is *not* absolute; physical strength and whatnot are not by default advantageous. This in entirely dependent how it affects the organisms' ability to survive and reproduce. For instance, a great size is advantageous in an environment with many predators and ample food to sustain the greater mass, while it's very detrimental in an environment with few or no predators and a limited food supply. In each of these environments, physical size is selected accordingly. This is the general basis for the "Island Rule". (https://en.wikipedia.org...)
v3nesl
Posts: 4,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2016 7:08:26 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/13/2016 6:39:03 PM, MagicAintReal wrote:
So would you say the designer of chess was non-intelligent?

Would you say that the designer of chess intended for chess pieces to die?
Nope. Living or dying or being attacked for that matter would not affect the chess piece's existence, would it?

But for things that cease to be if attacked enough, designing them in that way is a sign of not being intelligent...you usually have better analogies than that.


It's a great analogy and life works fabulously well. You're going to have pain and die someday. You don't like this, but it does not follow that the ecosystem is not a fabulous design - it just follows that you're expendable. Or so it would seem.

Well, ok, let's work with that - so medicine seeks stasis. It seeks to prevent evolution.

Well, you're actually right there.
By limiting the filtering process of natural selection, medicine has prevented evolution.
Doesn't mean that medicein doesn't use evolution to solve medical problems, though.

No, that fact doesn't mean medicine doesn't use evolution to solve problems.

But medicine doesn't use evolution to solve problems. I know, it can come as a bit of a shock if you've never thought about it before.


Explain how it's not counter to ID,

Adaptability is brilliant design. And the idea of having massive amounts of individual specimens that will [eventually] fail individually while contributing to the success of the overall system is brilliant. Descent with [statistically bounded] variation is a design feature, is what I'm saying.


To know how harmful biotics adapt and contribute to our health.
If we know the mechanism that makes these biotics resistant, we can try to combat that and save lives.

Well, not really, since mutations are random. The only future changes we can predict are predicted by understanding the coding of the DNA. Which is the ID model.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2016 7:11:57 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/13/2016 6:40:33 PM, MagicAintReal wrote:
The characteristics that allowed our particular species to live long enough to successfully reproduce included the neural wherewithal that elevated our intelligence.

One word refutation: Cockroach.

Cockroaches didn't need as much intelligent wherewithal to live long enough to reproduce successfully as humans did...your one word response sucks btw.

My observation is that it doesn't take much human intelligence to reproduce, and those of low intelligence often seem to be the best at it. I don't think human intelligence can be explained by evolution, but that's another topic.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2016 8:04:03 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/13/2016 6:57:39 PM, Chaosism wrote:
...

According to the theory, our level of intellect emerged as a result of environmental pressures to which we were subjected to; a culmination of selected mutations that compounded and produced a physiology/psychology that granted us a distinct advantage towards survival and reproduction.

And you probably would not have much problem showing a negative correlation between intelligence and reproductive rates. First world nations are having kids at a lower rate than 2nd and 3rd world peoples.

You could probably show a negative correlation between good medicine and reproductive rates, for that matter. Again, first world nations have low birth rates. Our medicine has given us the pill and the abortion. So these are a bit counter-intuitive results, but they aren't subtle trends.

So a lot of the glib evolution mantras really don't stand up to scrutiny, at least for the human species.
This space for rent.
Accipiter
Posts: 1,165
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2016 8:07:23 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
I see the words intelligent design or ID used in this thread and I have a question.

What does intelligent design prove?
Chaosism
Posts: 2,663
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2016 8:28:56 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/13/2016 8:04:03 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/13/2016 6:57:39 PM, Chaosism wrote:
...

According to the theory, our level of intellect emerged as a result of environmental pressures to which we were subjected to; a culmination of selected mutations that compounded and produced a physiology/psychology that granted us a distinct advantage towards survival and reproduction.

And you probably would not have much problem showing a negative correlation between intelligence and reproductive rates. First world nations are having kids at a lower rate than 2nd and 3rd world peoples.

You could probably show a negative correlation between good medicine and reproductive rates, for that matter. Again, first world nations have low birth rates. Our medicine has given us the pill and the abortion. So these are a bit counter-intuitive results, but they aren't subtle trends.

So a lot of the glib evolution mantras really don't stand up to scrutiny, at least for the human species.

Right, but this is applicable to us in a world in which we directly control a great deal of the environmental pressures that would otherwise direct natural selection. In effect, we've pretty much "turned it off" with our incredible medical capabilities and our ability to increase the carrying capacity of the world, and the enormous population size pretty much makes it impossible for any given mutation to emerge and become dominate in the gene pool. This isn't to say that such things don't ever occur, though (http://www.lipidsonline.org...). Additionally, with our modern technology that frees up much of our population (i.e. like 2% of the population of Great Britain produces enough food to feed the entire country), we are free to spend effort towards protecting those who would normally have died, not just medically, but through safety-oriented innovations and standards. Thus, negative traits are not so readily removed from the gene pool. (And I'm not advocating otherwise, FTR.)

The bottom line here is that high intelligence, although a huge part of our development as a species, is not so much a variable that dictates our survival anymore, because the environmental pressures don't dictate it. Our intellectual capacity to consider the future while not being consumed by matters of the present enables people to make more deliberate decisions about raising children. But perhaps an example actually does exist in the world in which intelligence has become a negatively selected trait: in Europe. The migrants (not trying to imply that their necessarily stupider; but definitely less educated) far outpace the Europeans in birth rates, which could potentially lead to the extinction of those humans (if the trends continue).

(This last bit is pretty much based on what I've routinely heard rather than statistics I looked up, so consider it appropriately.)
MagicAintReal
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2016 8:50:35 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
It's a great analogy and life works fabulously well.

No, a designer of chess pieces wouldn't need to worry about designing things resistant to death, because chess pieces don't die, so designing attackers of its design wouldn't be stupid, it would be fun, like a game.
However, if there were a designer of organisms, knowing that their existence/homeostasis can be compromised, dare I say eliminated, would need to worry about designing attackers...those attackers can eliminate his chess pieces, and so it's not really fun anymore.

That's why the analogy sucks.

You're going to have pain and die someday. You don't like this, but it does not follow that the ecosystem is not a fabulous design - it just follows that you're expendable. Or so it would seem.

I agree that I'm expendable, but that we have pain and need to die is a mark of poor design...why couldn't the designer make a more robust design not susceptible to attackers (that it also made) that can eliminate it?

But medicine doesn't use evolution to solve problems. I know, it can come as a bit of a shock if you've never thought about it before.

God you're oblivious...
Because bacteria and viruses reproduce rapidly, they evolve rapidly. These short generation times " some bacteria have a generation time of just 15 minutes " mean that natural selection acts quickly.
In each pathogen generation, new mutations and gene combinations are generated that then pass through the selective filter of our drugs and immune response. Over the course of many pathogen generations (a small fraction of a single human lifetime), they adapt to our defenses, evolving right out from under our attempts to rid ourselves of them.

...but I've never thought of it before.

Descent with [statistically bounded] variation is a design feature, is what I'm saying.

Wait, wait. wait...did you just admit descent by modification?
I get that you think it's a design feature, but you agree that organisms descend with variations?

You've conceded evolution!

Well, not really, since mutations are random. The only future changes we can predict are predicted by understanding the coding of the DNA. Which is the ID model.

Mutations are random, but those that are beneficial aren't randomly beneficial, the constraints select for beneficial mutations.

Do you understand that the mechanism of mutation is random, but what is needed to survive and reproduce is not random at all?
...the constraints are quite specific, especially if we're eradicating bacteria.
MagicAintReal
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2016 9:07:31 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Where did the Cambrian fauna come from? Did they all evolve from sponges and worms?

Awesome question!
"The latest Precambrian also has yielded trace fossils of unmistakable bilaterian origin. These remains indicate that major evolutionary diversification of animals already had occurred by the onset of the Cambrian."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

There were already pre-existing fauna from which cambrian fauna evolved.

How do you get from a worm to a trilobite, and where is the evidence?

What kind of worm are you talking about?
There's a ton of different things we call worms with different evolutionary history.
Do you mean arthropods?
janesix
Posts: 3,465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2016 9:15:56 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/13/2016 9:07:31 PM, MagicAintReal wrote:
Where did the Cambrian fauna come from? Did they all evolve from sponges and worms?

Awesome question!
"The latest Precambrian also has yielded trace fossils of unmistakable bilaterian origin. These remains indicate that major evolutionary diversification of animals already had occurred by the onset of the Cambrian."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

There were already pre-existing fauna from which cambrian fauna evolved.

How do you get from a worm to a trilobite, and where is the evidence?

What kind of worm are you talking about?
There's a ton of different things we call worms with different evolutionary history.
Do you mean arthropods?

No, I mean worms, from the Precambrian. There were no arthropods in the Precambrian.

"In the Vendian Period (620-540 million years ago), worm burrows become increasingly numerous. Since just prior to the Vendian the only evidence for macroscopic life was that of the worms, if the various phyla were to evolve, it must have been from the worms"
http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu...
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2016 10:59:41 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/13/2016 2:00:55 PM, MagicAintReal wrote:
I've been confronted with many people on this site who are anti-evolution, which is fine, but their "problems" with evolution are nearly always based on misrepresentation, misunderstanding, or complete oblivion, so I figured that I'd open up this forum for those who claim to have these "problems" with evolution, so that we can put them to bed.

That said, Ask Me Anything about evolution.

If evolution is true, why are there still creationists?
Checkmate athiests!
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2016 11:17:33 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/13/2016 2:17:04 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/13/2016 2:00:55 PM, MagicAintReal wrote:
I've been confronted with many people on this site who are anti-evolution, which is fine, but their "problems" with evolution are nearly always based on misrepresentation, misunderstanding, or complete oblivion, so I figured that I'd open up this forum for those who claim to have these "problems" with evolution, so that we can put them to bed.

That said, Ask Me Anything about evolution.

Whew - you scared me. I thought the American Medical Association was going political. That could be catastrophic, since medicine obviously is an intelligent design driven discipline. Medicine is 100% about assuming the body is supposed to work a certain way and finding ways to restore correct function or compensate for lost function.

Medicine spends untold billions trying to prevent the natural course of mutation. Medicine spends untold billions trying to prevent our species from drifting from it's current functionality. So yeah, let's leave the medical profession out of this dreadful train wreck of bad science.

Both evolution and creationism believe that the body has design. What they disagree about is what designed it. Medicine can't prevent mutations, that is genetic engineering and is not something that is very doable.

Both evolutionists and creationists agree that bad mutations happen. Evolution points out that bad mutations will get weeded out when there is a lot of natural selection.

So I don't see how modern medicine affirms creationism.
MagicAintReal
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2016 1:21:51 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
No, I mean worms, from the Precambrian. There were no arthropods in the Precambrian.

Well, I think you could call some of the precambrian bilaterians arthropods, but the link to trilobites is likely Parvancorina which would bridge that gap you're inquiring about.

"In the Vendian Period (620-540 million years ago), worm burrows become increasingly numerous. Since just prior to the Vendian the only evidence for macroscopic life was that of the worms, if the various phyla were to evolve, it must have been from the worms"
http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu...

Yeah, worms or cylindrical worm-like organisms.
Parvancorina seems to be the most reasonable intermediary to the trilobites.
http://www.trilobites.info...
MagicAintReal
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2016 1:25:20 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/13/2016 10:59:41 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/13/2016 2:00:55 PM, MagicAintReal wrote:
I've been confronted with many people on this site who are anti-evolution, which is fine, but their "problems" with evolution are nearly always based on misrepresentation, misunderstanding, or complete oblivion, so I figured that I'd open up this forum for those who claim to have these "problems" with evolution, so that we can put them to bed.

That said, Ask Me Anything about evolution.

If evolution is true, why are there still creationists?
Checkmate athiests!

nice
Looncall
Posts: 452
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2016 10:39:38 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/13/2016 10:59:41 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/13/2016 2:00:55 PM, MagicAintReal wrote:
I've been confronted with many people on this site who are anti-evolution, which is fine, but their "problems" with evolution are nearly always based on misrepresentation, misunderstanding, or complete oblivion, so I figured that I'd open up this forum for those who claim to have these "problems" with evolution, so that we can put them to bed.

That said, Ask Me Anything about evolution.

If evolution is true, why are there still creationists?
Checkmate athiests!

There are still creationists because religion rots the human intellect.
The metaphysicist has no laboratory.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2016 10:40:27 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/13/2016 8:07:23 PM, Accipiter wrote:
I see the words intelligent design or ID used in this thread and I have a question.
What does intelligent design prove?

That clergy should control the American education curriculum. :p
Accipiter
Posts: 1,165
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2016 1:13:38 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/14/2016 10:40:27 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/13/2016 8:07:23 PM, Accipiter wrote:
I see the words intelligent design or ID used in this thread and I have a question.
What does intelligent design prove?

That clergy should control the American education curriculum. :p

Yeah, that would be great if the goal was to take us all back to the stone age.

I must have asked that what does intelligent design prove question in comment sections and other forums a thousand times and not one single religious person has ever said it proves there is a god. It's as if they know it's indefensible so they don't say anything.
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2016 6:47:15 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
1) If evolution is real and adults come from babies, how do babies still exist?

2) If dogs evolved from wolves, why are there still wolves?

3) Teens these days are so dumb, but humans should be evolving faster. So why do teens exist?

#checkmate
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass