CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
If anyone can disprove the FACT of evolution I promise I will leave this site fo
If you can convince me that evolution is not an ABSOLUTE FACT I will leave this site, I will literally leave and never come back if you can hit me with an argument I can't dispute no matter how hard I try and I am forced to admit that evolution isn't a fact then I will officially never return to this site ever even in an alt account, I will literally NEVER come back and I will even consider castrating myself, becoming a christian and moving to alpha centauri.
Stick around. If a belief in mythology carries more weight than belief in a plethora of scientific theories, we need you around. There is NO proof of the myths ... beyond that of passed down stories of sheep and goat herders, finally condensed (and edited) into a book by an Emperor.
I'll stick with you and the science until someone offers some undeniable fact in the other direction. None have been forthcoming for at least 6000 years. ;-)
Define evolution. There are more than a few so called theories as it relates to evolution, and I don't believe that all of them are backed by science.
I mean, evolution can mean something as simple as change, which well.. The fact that we are moving through time seems to be a pretty intuitive proof of that.
1 a : a statement of the meaning of a word or word group or a sign or symbol dictionary definitions
b : a statement expressing the essential nature of something
c : a product of defining
2 : the action or process of stating the meaning of a word or word group
3 a : the action or the power of describing, explaining, or making definite and clear the definition of a telescope her comic genius is beyond definition
b (1) : clarity of visual presentation : distinctness of outline or detail improve the definition of an image (2) : clarity especially of musical sound in reproduction
c : sharp demarcation of outlines or limits a jacket with distinct waist definition
4 : an act of determining; specifically : the formal proclamation of a Roman Catholic dogma
Firstly, here are some questions for you creationists:
-There is no need of a god, the universe may have simply tarted from a chain reaction of universes collapsing into a space-time singularity and then re-expanding due to entropy.
- Assume the previous point is false. Who created god? Can god exist in a dimension where space and time don't exist?
- At CERN, physicists were able to create anti-matter using enormous amounts of energy (around 30 Billion kW to create 1 nanogram). How does God get the energy to create the ENTIRE UNIVERSE?
- Why does God look human? For all we know there may be so many other living species spread throughout the universe, so why does God, which is their creator as well, look coincidentally like us?
-The Earth isn't 6000 years old, there are literally cave paintings that are 5 times older.
-Beauty lies in simplicity. Why would God create such complex creatures? For example, why do we have 10 fingers, and not 12 (arithmetics is much easier in base 12).
- Fossil records show that evolution is a FACT.
Now, here comes the explanation disproving the probability argument that creationists love so much. If you're not a biochemist (why are you even arguing about something you barely know about), then I suggest reading just the part about tossing coins onwards.
If you're too lazy to read the explanation, read the final conclusion, since it's pretty important.
Having said that, all the calculations saying that the probabiblity of a protein forming is around (1/20)^300 are flawed, they include mistakes:
1) They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all.
2) They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life.
3) They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials.
4) They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.
5) They seriously underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences.
So the calculation goes that the probability of forming a given 300 amino acid long protein (say an enzyme like carboxypeptidase) randomly is (1/20)300 or 1 chance in 2.04 x 10390, which is astoundingly, mind-beggaringly improbable. This is then cranked up by adding on the probabilities of generating 400 or so similar enzymes until a figure is reached that is so huge that merely contemplating it causes your brain to dribble out your ears. This gives the impression that the formation of even the smallest organism seems totally impossible. However, this is completely incorrect.
Firstly, the formation of biological polymers from monomers is a function of the laws of chemistry and biochemistry, and these are decidedly not random.
Secondly, the entire premise is incorrect to start off with, because in modern abiogenesis theories the first "living things" would be much simpler, not even a protobacteria, or a preprotobacteria (what Oparin called a protobiont and Woese calls a progenote ), but one or more simple molecules probably not more than 30-40 subunits long. These simple molecules then slowly evolved into more cooperative self-replicating systems, then finally into simple organisms. The first "living things" could have been a single self replicating molecule, similar to the "self-replicating" peptide from the Ghadiri group, or the self replicating hexanucleotide, or possibly an RNA polymerase that acts on itself .
Another view is the first self-replicators were groups of catalysts, either protein enzymes or RNA ribozymes, that regenerated themselves as a catalytic cycle . An example is the SunY three subunit self-replicator . These catalytic cycles could be limited in a small pond or lagoon, or be a catalytic complex adsorbed to either clay or lipid material on clay. Given that there are many catalytic sequences in a group of random peptides or polynucleotides (see below) it's not unlikely that a small catalytic complex could be formed.
These two models are not mutually exclusive. The Ghadiri peptide can mutate and form catalytic cycles.
No matter whether the first self-replicators were single molecules, or complexes of small molecules, this model is nothing like Hoyle's "tornado in a junkyard making a 747". Just to hammer this home, here is a simple comparison of the theory criticised by creationists, and the actual theory of abiogenesis.
Note that the real theory has a number of small steps, and in fact I've left out some steps (especially between the hypercycle-protobiont stage) for simplicity. Each step is associated with a small increase in organisation and complexity, and the chemicals slowly climb towards organism-hood, rather than making one big leap.
Where the creationist idea that modern organisms form spontaneously comes from is not certain. The first modern abiogenesis formulation, the Oparin/Haldane hypothesis from the 20's, starts with simple proteins/proteinoids developing slowly into cells. Even the ideas circulating in the 1850's were not "spontaneous" theories. The nearest I can come to is Lamarck's original ideas from 1803!
Given that the creationists are criticising a theory over 150 years out of date, and held by no modern evolutionary biologist, why go further? Because there are some fundamental problems in statistics and biochemistry that turn up in these mistaken "refutations".
Another claim often heard is that there is a "life sequence" of 400 proteins, and that the amino acid sequences of these proteins cannot be changed, for organisms to be alive.
This, however, is nonsense. The 400 protein claim seems to come from the protein coding genome of Mycobacterium genetalium, which has the smallest genome currently known of any modern organism. However, inspection of the genome suggests that this could be reduced further to a minimal gene set of 256 proteins . Note again that this is a modern organism. The first protobiont/progenote would have been smaller still, and preceded by even simpler chemical systems.
As to the claim that the sequences of proteins cannot be changed, again this is nonsense. There are in most proteins regions where almost any amino acid can be substituted, and other regions where conservative substitutions (where charged amino acids can be swapped with other charged amino acids, neutral for other neutral amino acids and hydrophobic amino acids for other hydrophobic amino acids) can be made. Some functionally equivalent molecules can have between 30 - 50% of their amino acids different. In fact it is possible to substitute structurally non-identical bacterial proteins for yeast proteins, and worm proteins for human proteins, and the organisms live quite happily.
The "life sequence" is a myth.
So let's play the creationist game and look at forming a peptide by random addition of amino acids. This certainly is not the way peptides formed on the early Earth, but it will be instructive.
I will use as an example the "self-replicating" peptide from the Ghadiri group mentioned above. I could use other examples, such as the hexanucleotide self-replicator, the SunY self-replicator or the RNA polymerase described by the Eckland group, but for historical continuity with creationist claims a small peptide is ideal. This peptide is 32 amino acids long with a sequence of RMKQLEEKVYELLSKVACLEYEVARLKKVGE and is an enzyme, a peptide ligase that makes a copy of itself from two 16 amino acid long subunits. It is also of a size and composition that is ideally suited to be formed by abiotic peptide synthesis. The fact that it is a self replicator is an added irony.
The probability of generating this in successive random trials is (1/20)^32 or 1 chance in 4.29 x 10^40. This is much, much more probable than the 1 in 2.04 x 10^390 of the standard creationist "generating carboxypeptidase by chance" scenario, but still seems absurdly low.
However, there is another side to these probability estimates, and it hinges on the fact that most of us don't have a feeling for statistics. When someone tells us that some event has a one in a million chance of occuring, many of us expect that one million trials must be undergone before the said event turns up, but this is wrong.
Here is a experiment you can do yourself: take a coin, flip it four times, write down the results, and then do it again. How many times would you think you had to repeat this procedure (trial) before you get 4 heads in a row?
Now the probability of 4 heads in a row is is (1/2)^4 or 1 chance in 16: do we have to do 16 trials to get 4 heads (HHHH)? No, in successive experiments I got 11, 10, 6, 16, 1, 5, and 3 trials before HHHH turned up. The figure 1 in 16 (or 1 in a million or 1 in 1040) gives the likelihood of an event in a given trial, but doesn't say where it will occur in a series. You can flip HHHH on your very first trial (I did). Even at 1 chance in 4.29 x 10^40, a self-replicator could have turned up surprisingly early. But there is more.
1 chance in 4.29 x 10^40 is still orgulously, gobsmackingly unlikely; it's hard to cope with this number. Even with the argument above (you could get it on your very first trial) most people would say "surely it would still take more time than the Earth existed to make this replicator by random methods". Not really; in the above examples we were examining sequential trials, as if there was only one protein/DNA/proto-replicator being assembled per trial. In fact there would be billions of simultaneous trials as the billions of building block molecules interacted in the oceans, or on the thousands of kilometers of shorelines that could provide catalytic surfaces or templates.
Let's go back to our example with the coins. Say it takes a minute to toss the coins 4 times; to generate HHHH would take on average 8 minutes. Now get 16 friends, each with a coin, to all flip the coin simultaneously 4 times; the average time to generate HHHH is now 1 minute. Now try to flip 6 heads in a row; this has a probability of (1/2)^6 or 1 in 64. This would take half an hour on average, but go out and recruit 64 people, and you can flip it in a minute. If you want to flip a sequence with a chance of 1 in a billion, just recruit the population of China to flip coins for you, you will have that sequence in no time flat.
So, if on our prebiotic earth we have a billion peptides growing simultaneously, that reduces the time taken to generate our replicator significantly.
Okay, you are looking at that number again, 1 chance in 4.29 x 10^40, that's a big number, and although a billion starting molecules is a lot of molecules, could we ever get enough molecules to randomly assemble our first replicator in under half a billion years?
Yes, one kilogram of the amino acid arginine has 2.85 x 10^24 molecules in it (that's well over a billion billion); a tonne of arginine has 2.85 x 10^27 molecules. If you took a semi-trailer load of each amino acid and dumped it into a medium size lake, you would have enough molecules to generate our particular replicator in a few tens of years, given that you can make 55 amino acid long proteins in 1 to 2 weeks
So how does this shape up with the prebiotic Earth? On the early Earth it is likely that the ocean had a volume of 1 x 10^24 litres. Given an amino acid concentration of 1 x 10^-6 M (a moderately dilute soup, see Chyba and Sagan 1992), then there are roughly 1 x 10^50 potential starting chains, so that a fair number of efficent peptide ligases (about 1 x 10^31) could be produced in a under a year, let alone a million years. The synthesis of primitive self-replicators could happen relatively rapidly, even given a probability of 1 chance in 4.29 x 10^40 (and remember, our replicator could be synthesized on the very first trial).
Assume that it takes a week to generate a sequence . Then the Ghadiri ligase could be generated in one week, and any cytochrome C sequence could be generated in a bit over a million years (along with about half of all possible 101 peptide sequences, a large proportion of which will be functional proteins of some sort).
Although I have used the Ghadiri ligase as an example, as I mentioned above the same calculations can be performed for the SunY self replicator, or the Ekland RNA polymerase. The general conclusion (you can make scads of the things in a short time) is the same for these oligonucleotides.
With that said, it's easy to see how the probability of proteins forming is not (1/20)^300. The reason that we haven't been able to reproduce these findings yet is because it takes time, millions of years maybe...
Finally, evolution has been proved. Nowadays, many new technologies rely on evolution, such as in computer science, where evolutionary algorithms are used to simplify complex modelling problems. Now, if evolution were false, these technologies wouldn't work... however they do work, therefore showing that evolution HAS to be true,
Kota said: -There is no need of a god, the universe may have simply started from a chain reaction of universes collapsing into a space-time singularity and then re-expanding due to entropy.
So you already have "universes collapsing", why need to have them collapse to create your imaginary universe, when you already have all these bubble-in a bubble universes, .. know what I mean?
No need of gods, I agree, way too many of them out there. But to avoid 'infinite regress', we need a Creator, right? Not a created creator like all them gods we have, but A-Creator, or more specifically The uncreated Creator, .. and what do you know, we have found Him right there in the Bible:
Infinite and Eternal "I Am"
Now I'm not talking about a god who goes on infinitely, but that Infinite Is God.
If Infinite is God, He has to be the Only Possible One, since Infinite is borderless and you cannot put anything next to or besides Him. I mean where would you put another being or thing if Infinite has no borders?
One thing I have learned over and over on this site, is that there is NOTHING any person could ever say or do to prove anything to a deceptive Liberal.
No matter how many times you present them with facts from sites, they will say those are not real facts. They simply deny the evidence.
For you to try and tell others how evolution is a proven fact, and you don't even know how the first living cell mystically and magically popped to life, means you are a waste of time to debate.
the only reason im responding to you is this: "and you don't even know how the first living cell mystically and magically popped to life", lets clear up this logical fallacy
yes, we dont know how did the first living organism come to exist... we already know of a couple of options which could have occured but we will probably never know the exact reason and event... but that doesnt mean we cant prove all living creatures are connected in a family tree and trace it all back to one living organism, yes we dont know everything... but religion doesnt know anything, it just assumes everything instead
There is no evolution if their is no original cell of life. If you cannot explain how life emerged from non-life, you cannot explain evolution. It never happened and will never happen.
You try to dismiss this fact from your belief in evolution because you know that it's much easier to believe in evolution without facing the problem of the origin of life.
Your religion is called "Naturalism". In your religion, you ascribe supernatural powers to inanimate matter and believe it keeps you out of the fire of Hell.
there is NOTHING any person could ever say or do to prove anything to a deceptive Liberal.
There is the black and white thinking again, everyone who disagrees with me is a deceptive liberal, everyone who disagrees with me is a far right neo nazi etc. This is just more proof that you are all robots and I am one of the few real humans left, because the level of linear polarized truncated narrow minded thinking displayed from within the monitor of my computer screen is atrociously egregious.
No matter how many times you present them with facts
Let's see your "facts" I have never had the pleasure of ripping you a new ass hole, how do you know I am like the others if I haven't even torn you a new rectum yet?
For you to try and tell others how God's existence is a proven fact, and you don't even know how the all knowing all powerfully divine consciousness mystically and magically popped to life out of nothing, means you are a waste of time to debate.
I am very open to the idea that there is a higher power, please debate this with me. I will debate evolution and you debate against it.
For the record, it even confuses me how one species can turn into another one. I can, however, explain micro-evolution (within a species) to you very well.
So by 'evolution' I assume we are talking one species to another, not within a species things like race/breed etc.
Microevolution is an indisputable fact even to the most religious among us. The question comes when we discuss a new species forming from an old one.
I invented this idea (has been posted before in other wording on my other accounts on the Internet) but feel free to copyright it and even to claim it as your own. I really am happy for people to challenge atheists on this shit because I love it when a smart person debates against science... Seriously, I love how hard they try and this is actually very well-put.
P = provision/fact and C = conclusion/theory. The operation symbols are identical to math meaning.
P1: No two species can mate to produce grandchildren (in other words, no two species can produce fertile offspring together).
P2: In order for one species to evolve into another, the intermediary generations would involve two species mating.
P3: If a species cannot mate to produce fertile offspring, there is required a means other than mating for macro-evolution to work.
P4: Only a single-celled being could possibly macro-evolve as it has no zygote (mix of 2 gamete cells) required for its replication/reproduction process and so mutations can occur to a point where an offspring has developed somethign strange in its DNA (or RNA for viruses).
P1+P2+P3+P4 =C1
C1: Macro-evolution is impossible for multi-celled organisms by natural means.
P5: There is not yet a known way for multi-cellular organisms to reproduce without mating and so the only way macro-evolution could be true is if there is something called a 'species-generating species' that exists for one generation and has insane mutation potential which led to many of the similar kind of being.
C1+P5=C2
C2: The only way for macro-evolution to occur in multi-cellular organisms is for there to be some form of intelligent design (AKA unnatural) rigging the system for there to be sudden bursts of 'species-generating species'. This has never been observed yet and therefore it is likely the intelligent designer decided to hide the evidence and only allow us to find the fossils of what resulted from their existence rather than to catch their actual fossils.
well, you dont understand how evolution works: "In order for one species to evolve into another, the intermediary generations would involve two species mating."
thats just not true, we call some life form a part of a species just because it is different enough from any other "specie", all thats required for the transition from species to species is that over a long time there would occur many small changes that eventually make the distent ancestor look different enough from the new creature for us to call that new creature a new species... there was never a point in which a monkey gave birth to the first human or anything like that -_-
How can the changes become so severe that the species can't produce fertile offspring anymore?
Because they occur over hundreds of thousands of years. Evolution is an extremely slow process from the perspective of a human lifespan.
More importantly, why would the other species evolve in the same environment?
Why wouldn't they? The very fact that the new species has arrived implies they are better equipped to deal with the same environment, otherwise they would not have survived to become a new species in the first place.
If the species can become so different and BOTH remain alive, why exactly did one group of different ones keep fucking each other and the other group keep fucking each other? Why did the mixing stop? Why is it just 2 species forming or 3 and not 100 by a ton of inter-species mixing as they evolve along?
Why can suddenly over 1-2 generations the change be that severe that one group suddenly can't mate with the other group to produce fertile offspring?
You say it's hundreds of years, but the 'switching point' when one group can't mate with the other to produce fertile offspring clearly happens just over 1 or maximum 2 generations (as the third one dies out in almost all non-human animals by the time the third one has finished puberty).
You say it's hundreds of years, but the 'switching point' when one group can't mate with the other to produce fertile offspring clearly happens just over 1 or maximum 2 generations
I have no idea why you have concluded this. For starters, the development of new species implies a certain degree of separation from the old species, because the new species must reproduce anomalous genes not found in the previous species.
So you are telling me that one child is born randomly mutated and he just decides to fuck others who somehow are similarly mutated to him coincidentally that generation? Then, their children decide to only fuck each other despite being similar enough to the other breed of the species and somehow they keep fucking only their own deviation of genes and the other fucks only their until they have changed so severely that the one group can't fuck the other anymore?
So you are telling me that one child is born randomly mutated and he just decides to fuck others who somehow are similarly mutated to him coincidentally that generation?
Are you retarded? Only one parent needs to possess a gene in order for it to be passed down.
Okay but why can the children of them not mate with the children of the older species to produce fertile offspring anymore? That's actually how you define what a species is, that it can produce fertile offspring with its own kind and no other creature can do that with it.
Because the changes - on the genetic level - have accumulated to the point where they are simply incompatible, anymore. Over thousands of generations, or tens of thousands - keep in mind, it takes very little change to be dramatically different, genetically - we are 96+% the same as chimpanzees.
So, suddenly one generation a large enough group can mate with each other but not with the other group but their parents could all mate with each other?
It's not "all of a sudden". Ligers, tigons, and mules are excellent evidence of that. Slowly, they lose the ability - and for a long time, some cross-species mating is likely to be possible...usually creating sterile offspring...but eventually, that won't work, anymore.
You do get that not every mating produces a mule, right? That most don't bear out at all? (and by that, I'm not referring to just mules, but using it as the generic term to describe inter-species creatures in general)
When you call them "sudden violations of genetic law", you do realize that they're almost always bred through human interaction, right? The one example that I know of that has occurred only naturally is the recent polar bear-grizzly crossbreeding. There may well be more I'm not aware of, but it's much rarer than with human intervention.
Humans have done cross-breeding for over a hundred years, now, famously and most commonly with fruit producing plants.
In my original post I explicity concede microevolution as true.
A breed is not a species, it is a subset of that. Same with race (in humans, a 'breed' is called a 'race' because we don't like to admit we are animals so we made a different word).
Everything in this post is true, but it doesn't address the point. As speciation occurs, some crossbreeding is possible. Ultimately, if it's not happening, chances become less and less as the separation broadens genetically. Breeds could possibly become species, but breeding is specifically humans interfering with natural selection to promote particular things we want. It's the opposite of human interference to crossbreed.
At this point, I am unsure what you are arguing and I only posted this to achieve a challenge that I genuinely believe I'm one of the only humans on Earth to be able to do (to formally debate against evolution and make it totally rational) I took it upon myself to make FactMachine quit the site as I fucking hate his guts.
I don't think evolution is a lie, I think intelligent designers rigged it.
You really do need to go back and learn evolutionary theory before you can debate against it. He has a pretty good grasp of it, and your arguments just don't make sense to those of us who have actually studied it.
No, it isn't. Macro-evolution is literally nothing more than micro-evolution over a longer period of time, to the point where the change is significant enough for speciation to occur.
Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change:
mutation
migration
genetic drift
natural selection
Nowhere does it mention cross-breeding. That's because it's not a part of the theory.
If the species can become so different and BOTH remain alive, why exactly did one group of different ones keep fucking each other and the other group keep fucking each other? Why did the mixing stop? Why is it just 2 species forming or 3 and not 100 by a ton of inter-species mixing as they evolve along?
Why can suddenly over 1-2 generations the change be that severe that one group suddenly can't mate with the other group to produce fertile offspring?
You say it's hundreds of years, but the 'switching point' when one group can't mate with the other to produce fertile offspring clearly happens just over 1 or maximum 2 generations (as the third one dies out in almost all non-human animals by the time the third one has finished puberty).
How suddenly can enough of one species end up geographically split from the other to evolve into a completely different one?
Even so, how does it suddenly happen that one group keeps fucking itself long enough to end up unable to produce fertile offspring with the other group?
Please answer the other question as well as they were both linked, it is about what can be done within 1-2 generations and why none of one set are mating with the other set... It makes no sense.
The reason it makes no sense to you is you keep talking about 1-2 generations, when we aren't talking about 1-2 generations, but thousands. There is a difference, you know.
But why does one group keep fucking each other generation after generation and NOT FUCKING THE SIMILAR ONE until they are so different they can't mate effectively with the other type anymore... This makes no sense that a huge bunch would decide to not fuck the other bunch generation after generation so that no middle-group emerges and so that even if a middle group emerges they somehow still all can't mate with each other further down the line.
The only insult is the simple fact that you keep repeating the same meaningless thing that displays an utter ignorance of the subject, and has been repeatedly answered with the correct answer, which you fail to understand, and feel insulted. You need to learn the very basics of evolutionary theory - yes, that they teach in grade school - before you can attempt more advanced discussion on the matter.
If you find that insulting, then reality is an insult to you.
The only insult is the simple fact that you keep repeating the same meaningless thing that displays an utter ignorance of the subject, and has been repeatedly answered with the correct answer, which you fail to understand, and feel insulted. You need to learn the very basics of evolutionary theory - yes, that they teach in grade school - before you can attempt more advanced discussion on the matter.
I gave him the answer he needed an hour ago. Migration.
He's just playing Devil's advocate. I'm fairly sure he believes in evolution.
I don't know the exact name for what he's doing, but the idea is to throw out a series of potential objections which themselves are grounded in fallacy or misunderstanding. I used to deal with this regularly when I would debate 9/11 with people. You literally have no idea how many times I have read the line, "but it would have taken hundreds of thousands of men to wire the WTC for demolition, therefore it can't have been demolished."
I'm familiar, and I suspect something of the like.
Evolution is just one of those subjects that is actually that crucial, and has been repeatedly challenged, out of ignorance - we don't need any more misinformation about what's actually a cornerstone of biology. Medicine is making amazing advances, right now, because of evolutionary theory.
Yeah believe indeed. Extremist blind bigoted Believers of a greek myth.
Darwinism is a really strong religion.
ghost of darwin turned evil god.
Saying he believes in evolution. alone makes it sound weird(discomfort). As if you are paid to promote something you clearly know is fake and you are happy with a good job done(but a bit worried about his little resistance so you are compelled to give a pleasant report to the members of the fellowship)...
Actually, at this point in time, he's repeatedly commented about how "the one thing" he doesn't understand, though it's been explained ad-nauseum, is macro-evolution. He still seems to have the idea that he's the best person in the world to explain away the theory that millions do understand. I'm convinced he's a pretty significant narcissist, and can't admit it.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure it's something like that. He has an integral flaw in his understanding of the very basics of evolutionary theory, and refuses to accept it. The only people I've ever run across with that sort of reaction before were arguing from a religious standpoint.
first of all i just want to give you credit for being reasonable and actually challenging my thought process... but you still didnt convince me
i can think of 3 good reasons:
1. the offspring of members of the 2 different groups might have not been stable and able to survive since a combination of some of the genes of both groups usually isnt gonna give a good result
2. the 2 groups developed a genetic attraction for members of there own groups
3. 2 groups simply split off from eachother even tho at the time they were from the same species and because of that the 2 groups evolved in different directions... its not like all the members of a species are gonna be in one group
For 1 to be true the 'mixed group' after just ONE GENERATION must have had DNA alterations that were so maladaptive that they couldn't mate with either of the two types to keep their gene-pool going.
For 2 to be true, you are honestly telling me that after 1-2 generations that occurred (I don't think so buddy).
For 3 to be true, it must have been a very huge group making a very conscious decision... this doesn't sound like the animal kingdom to me (or plant for that matter).
1 and 2 both make sense in combination with 3 (which was my main point) and your explanation for 3 doesnt make much sense:
what "very conscious decision"? groups split off and combine all the time in the animal kingdom... or else there would only be one group of each species, frankly thats something only we humans manage to do, and no it wouldnt have to be such a huge group, why would it?
1. i really dont get the problem here... but for example changes in: size, body structure, means of reproduction, gene types, etc, etc
2. are you saying its impossible that 2 different species be well suited for the same environment? if so i can give you many examples which say otherwise
If the species can become so different and BOTH remain alive, why exactly did one group of different ones keep fucking each other and the other group keep fucking each other? Why did the mixing stop? Why is it just 2 species forming or 3 and not 100 by a ton of inter-species mixing as they evolve along?
Why can suddenly over 1-2 generations the change be that severe that one group suddenly can't mate with the other group to produce fertile offspring?
The stuff you have stated regarding how a monkey over kramillions of years morphs into a man has never been observed in nature. Your beliefs are not science. Somebody has fooled you into replacing science with beliefs. Whoever did that to you is not your friend.
You might be right, if you only understood anything about what you were arguing, but you don't. There is a fundamental flaw in your argument in that it has absolutely nothing to do with the theory you're trying to debate. Me telling you that is not a fallacy...and incidentally, I didn't attack you, which is ad-hominem. I told you that what you were saying was crap. You don't even understand the fallacy.
It has been observed that a species of lizards separated into varying populations which became unable to interbreed. They are different species of lizards, yet the same kind of lizard like Darwin's finches. Variation occurs within kinds of animals and new species arise; it's not evolution, it's not micro-evolution: It's variances allowed for in the genome of the kind of animal.
Typical boneheaded evolutionist/atheistic product of public education and cartoons. You know your beliefs are baseless so you try to protect yourself by insulting anybody who does not buy the bag of goods you have sold your soul for.
So by 'evolution' I assume we are talking one species to another, not within a species things like race/breed etc.
There is no reason to exclude those things because they are a part of the process of evolution. In fact, they have central relevance to the reason you are completely incorrect. Cutting out the grey areas is the only way to give your little equation a fighting chance.
No two species can mate to produce grandchildren (in other words, no two species can produce fertile offspring together)
Let's take the neanderthal and the human for example, they are pretty much a different species, but they can produce fertile offspring, otherwise white people wouldn't be here. If that doesn't work for you, a roughly equivalent example would be a wolf reproducing with a dog. But that doesn't even matter, because different species or sub groups of the same species don't have to mate for speciation to occur in the first place.
In order for one species to evolve into another, the intermediary generations would involve two species mating.
Hyper reductionist oversimplification in order to satisfy a deeply rooted bias is the only explanation for such a radical failure to comprehend even the most basic principles of evolution. It's an INCREMENTAL and GRADUAL process, there is no need for two different species to mate, only for the right influences to act upon a species over a considerable period of time which causes individuals with certain traits to survive and adapt better to those conditions therefore those individuals reproduce more and the more the offspring mutate to accentuate those successful traits the more they in turn reproduce and therefore those traits are gradually proliferated and amplified until speciation occurs.
Macro-evolution is impossible for multi-celled organisms by natural means.
You must not have a multi-celled brain.
The only way for macro-evolution to occur in multi-cellular organisms is for there to be some form of intelligent design
Then how did the intelligent designer that is even more complex than life on earth get designed?
(AKA unnatural)
If God is real then he is the source of nature, so how can he be unnatural? The concept of something being unnatural or supernatural is self contradictory, everything that exists must be natural because "nature" is the universe itself.
"different species or sub groups of the same species don't have to mate for speciation to occur in the first place."
Yes they do.
I cannot answer about the intelligent designer(s) as I do not know his/her/its/their identity.
Explain to me how the increments and gradual sexual reproduction can suddenly result in one bunch of offspring in one generation not being able to reproduce with the other one anymore.
different species or sub groups of the same species don't have to mate for speciation to occur in the first place.
Your link didn't lead anywhere that disproved that statement.
There is no abrupt change which occurs that suddenly creates a different species that can't reproduce with the previous generation, it's an incremental change, so the differences from generation to generation are small but if you go back millions of generations the species might look entirely different.
They do have to mate. The only beings that don't have to mate for speciation thus far have been single-celled organisms.
If the change isn't rapid, then I have disproved macro-evolution altogether. If it is rapid and widespread in spurts, this implies the type of ID rigging I said is plausible.
Perhaps we are miscommunicating, to me it sounded like you where implying that two entirely separate species have to mate for speciation to occur, if you are just referring to mating in general then that's a given, obviously they would have to mate
If the change isn't rapid, then I have disproved macro-evolution altogether. If it is rapid and widespread in spurts, this implies the type of ID rigging I said is plausible.
This is total nonsense, you haven't proven in the slightest that evolution can't exist as a gradual and time consuming process, which it is. Your hyper-reductionist assertions bypass the entire notion out of necessity, for it is the very gradual and incremental nature of evolution which destroys your logic and that is why you can't even acknowledge such a thing. And if it was rapid that would not necessarily imply intelligent design, there could be other explanations like quantum supersymmetrical hyper-string manifolds oscillating within the ninth dimension which are bound through the membrane field lattice of hyperspace through various field modalities to the Deoxy-ribo Nucleic Acid and produces the holographic resonance of order and complexity.
I guarantee you, the argument I just put forth is the single strongest one against macro-evolution and is one I myself genuinely invented (if you see if posted on another debate site, it was me).
I am proud of it and know that it can be countered by saying 'well what if it happens over time and wasn't intelligently designed' or 'what if your species-generating species are randomly mutated and not intelligently designed' but it's the single best way to show a flaw in macro-evolutionary theory and frankly I still don't think you or anyone in the entire scientific community can bridge this gap in their logic.
I truly believe in intelligent design but am unsure which power precisely there are. It can be aliens, it can be demigods it can be anything I don't fucking know what (as a 3-dimensional entity I am incapable of imagining a being that is existing in a 4-or-more-dimensional state).
Of course, as has been exposed, your "strongest argument against macro-evolution" simply shows that you don't understand the simple concepts of evolution, even after it has been repeatedly explained to you. Nothing more.
I hate to break it to ya, but no one in the scientific community would so much as bat an eye at your argument, because it is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how evolution works. You are simply making the assertion that macro-evolution must happen abruptly, that there must be a generation which suddenly just can't reproduce with the last and becomes a new species automatically, and that there must be intelligent design because of that. The only way you can believe this line of thinking has any credibility is if you completely ignore and refuse to even acknowledge the possibility that evolution is A GRADUAL AND INCREMENTAL PROCESS AND NONE OF YOUR ARGUMENTS HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH HOW EVOLUTION REALLY WORKS, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO REASON TO ASSUME ANY OF YOUR PROVISIONS ARE TRUE BECAUSE AS I'VE ALREADY POINTED OUT THEY REQUIRE YOU TO JUST AUTOMATICALLY ASSUME THAT MACRO-EVOLUTION IS AN ABRUPT SPONTANEOUS PROCESS AND IGNORE "BREED" OR ANY GREY AREA WHICH MAY LEAD TO A LARGER DEVIATION, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO REASON FOR THESE ASSUMPTIONS AND ASSERTIONS OTHER THAN TO SET UP A FALSE PRETENSE TO PROTECT YOUR ARGUMENT AND TO AUTOMATICALLY DISQUALIFY ANY ARGUMENT WHICH RELATES TO THE ACTUAL PROCESS WHICH LEADS TO SPECIATION, THE BASELESS ASSERTION THAT "new species magically appear abruptly because god" IS NOT PROOF OF ANYTHING EXCEPT REMARKABLE BIAS AND IGNORANCE
Why must macroevolution happen rapidly? Why why why why why? Where have you provided any evidence for that claim? Stop pretending you have proven something when you are just making unfounded baseless claims to support your position, you are not trying to reach an objective conclusion, you have already decided to believe what you believe and are just trying to confirm what you already assume to be true.
I would suggest basing your conclusion on evidence rather than deciding on a conclusion before hand and making up your own rules to support that conclusion, once again I will remind you for good measure THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT TWO DIFFERENT SPECIES MUST MATE FOR SPECIATION TO OCCUR AND THERE IS NO REASON TO ASSUME THAT MACRO EVOLUTION MUST OCCUR ABRUPTLY AND YOU WILL HAVE TO PROVIDE SOME BASIS FOR THOSE CLAIMS BEFORE YOU CARRY ON AS IF THEY ARE A GIVEN SO SHUT UP OR SUPPORT YOUR BASELESS ASSERTIONS
There is no such thing as evolution, not even "micro-evolution". Adaptation and variation in a kind of animal is not evolution in any degree. "Speciation" is not evolution.
What's crazy about your post, is you go on and on about somebody DISPROVING a scientific fact, which, of course, simply CAN'T be done.. Negatives cannot, lemme repeat that, CANNOT be proven.. If you know ANYTHING about science, you'd know that..
Consequently, I've PROVEN you're a scientific dolt and you should leave.. Please!
Negatives cannot, lemme repeat that, CANNOT be proven.
Ex-Con, your heart is in the right place, but you're dumber than a wet fence post.
Not being able to prove a negative is sheer internet myth. How difficult do you imagine it to be for someone to prove it isn't raining? Or that they are not a dog?
What can't be proven is the absence of something in all circumstances where the parameters of where it could be are not clearly defined.
Says the person that claims 2,000 rapists in one single day
Oh God shut up you lying fascist retard. YOU WERE THE ONE WHO SAID "2,000 RAPISTS IN ONE DAY". Not me. YOU. You claimed there were 2,000 rapists, but there were only 24 alleged rapes, and the link you posted made absolutely clear the 2,000 figure was not the number of rapists.
You are a pathological liar and an imbecile. Fuck off.
YOU WERE THE ONE WHO POSTED THE DAMNED LINK THAT I GOT THE INFORMATION FROM IN THE FIRST PLACE! I'm not arguing with you bronto because you're a total fucking liar.
Bwahahahaha! Can't answer the question can you Nom?
Your cognitive dissonance and brainwashing are so strong that you can't even admit facts or reality. You'd prefer a nice, cozy lie over what your lying eyes see, so you retreat to your safe space where 2,000 Muslim men didn't attack thousands of German women in one day.
where 2,000 Muslim men didn't attack thousands of German women in one day.
Your link said NOTHING about ANY of the suspects being Muslim. You are utterly, utterly ridiculous. You are such a whopping great liar that somebody needs to seriously smack you in the mouth.
You want to believe in evolution, so nothing will persuade you to not believe in it.
You want to believe in evolution because you feel it exonerates you in death. You love your sin more than life, and evolution suits your pleasures so you die for it.
Evolution is nothing new, in the Bible it was shown in pagan tribes who worshiped Dagon, the god they believed was a fish which morphed into man. Dagon idols resembled male mermaids. Evolution is a religious belief, it is not science.
That's easy, even Evolutionists deny that "evolution", specifically speciation even happens. Show me ONE Evolutionists that believes, or claims that "speciation" happens?
I don't care if it's a million or a billion years ago, show me ONE Evolutionists that ever claimed that "evolution/speciation happens"?
But please, don't leave this site, I would not like that. How about that you will become a Believer in your Creator if I prove to you that evolution never happens, nor has it ever happened, and no one ever claimed it happened?