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.
NOTE: I do not agree with everything Hovind says in his talks, but he is certainly right here.
I think it's funny that evolutionists compare the two and claim Micro is the same as Macro just over a long period of time. This view is overly simplistic and isn't consistent with natural selection.
Here is an example of micro evolution: A dog with the genes for long fur breeds with a dog that has the genes for short fur. They have puppies, some have long fur, some have short fur. A particularly harsh winter comes about and all the dogs with short fur die from the cold while the puppies with long fur survive, thus the entire local dog population has long fun, wheres before it may have been predominantly short hair. That is Micro-evolution. Please note that if the dog with long hair hadn't added his genes into the gene pool of the local population, none of the puppies would have had long fur, but because this genetic material was added the species evolved.
Macro evolution, however, claims that all life on earth came from one or a few single celled organisms. In order for micro evolution to occur there would have to be genes added to the gene pool. If they aren't added then the species doesn't advance. This is what makes macro evolution ridiculous, it claims creatures get more and more advanced yet it never answers the question "where does the genetic material needed to change in a positive way come from?"
At this point, the evolutionist may bring up mutations. However, with 99% of mutations being harmful and 100% of mutation being a lose of genetic material "although this lose is helpful on rare occasions) the species would quickly die out.
Once again, mutations are almost always harmful and are always the lose of organized information in the genome, please prove how random copying mistakes in the genome can cause the genome to become more advanced when mutations are almost always harmful.
lol I can't believe I have to explain this to you. THINK! If the harmful mutation rate is over 50% which it overwhelmingly is, that means species are de-evolving because the genes are becoming more corrupt. If your doing more harm then good eventually you will destroy it!
I can't believe I have to explain this. If the mutation rate is not 100% harmful, it is possible for mutations to cause new genes to be created. That was your question. How can new genes be created. Not what is the likelihood of new genes being created, but how is it possible AT ALL. Stop trying to explain stuff and start trying to listen. You can start by listening to yourself because even you know deep down that I am right.
"I can't believe I have to explain this. If the mutation rate is not 100% harmful, it is possible for mutations to cause new genes to be created."
I find this statement funny. It's like saying "For every problem I fix on my car, I create 99 more problems, therefore my car is someday going to be a supercar because I'm fixing it!"
I find this statement funny. It's like saying "For every problem I fix on my car, I create 99 more problems, therefore my car is someday going to be a supercar because I'm fixing it!"
I find your statement funny because instead of critical thinking you demonstrated no thinking.
It is like saying that for every 100 changes I make to my car I get one good change. AND, for the 99 bad changes, the car will reject the change and go back to where it was. See how I can get my super car now?
At this point, the evolutionist may bring up mutations. However, with 99% of mutations being harmful and 100% of mutation being a lose of genetic material "although this lose is helpful on rare occasions) the species would quickly die out.
That is a false statement, study some biology. 99% is probably exaggerated and the 100% figure is absolutely incorrect. Not all mutations result in a loss of genetic material.
This is genetics. Genetics is actually testable and verifiable. Now you want to dispute facts that can actually be demonstrated for you. See how unreasonable you are?
Do you know what a mutation is? Do you know what a gene is? A gene is a coded message telling a cell how to make proteins, a mutation is when the RNA copying the DNA makes a mistake. Now do you want to dispute the facts? See how unreasonable you are? Common sense tells us that over time the DNA would become so currupted that the organism would eventually die (hence your car's death)
A gene is a coded message telling a cell how to make proteins, a mutation is when the RNA copying the DNA makes a mistake.
That is not the only way a mutation occurs. Plus, I don't even think that is really considered.
Now do you want to dispute the facts?
Fact, you don't fully understand genetics.
See how unreasonable you are?
I see how unreasonable you are.
Common sense tells us that over time the DNA would become so currupted that the organism would eventually die (hence your car's death)
So, you are saying that mutations don't occur at all then. If you are right, no living thing would be alive today because if the RNA makes mistakes it will kill the "host."
The argument I am making is that it is possible for mutations to cause good things to happen. You are arguing that it is impossible for mutations to be good at all. Your evidence that mutations can do no good is that mutations will over time be bad. That is not proof that my claim is wrong.
The main form of mutation is actually the DNA changing before RNA is copied from it. Biological processes actually have ways of detecting some bad mutations and fixing the problem. Plus, if mutations are bad enough it will only kill the host. So, only the individuals who have no mutations or good mutations survive. You are only focusing on the destruction and not seeing that the destruction will allow what isn't destroyed to continue.
Thats like saying that I can drive 1 mile in a car, but not possibly drive 100 miles, micro evolution leads to macro evolution, his understanding of biology and natural selection is so innacurate its hilarious.
"Thats like saying that I can drive 1 mile in a car, but not possibly drive 100 miles,"
Your analogy fails since micro-evolution is limited to the current genes in the genome, I would encourage you to re-read my last comment since I already refuted what you just said. For example, saying a small mammal in it's coarse of breeding produces variations of the same kind of small mammal and concluding that that mammal can evolve into, lets say, a bird is a huge assumption that cannot be verified. The genome in the small mammal allows for changes because other small mammals of the same kind have slight variation in things such as fur colour, but none of the mammals in the population have the genes to produce feathers or the lungs or skeleton of a bird.
So your analogy is valid if you take into account that the car has only enough fuel to drive one mile. The genetic 'fuel' of the mammals only allows it to change so much, as is possible within the genome of the mammal.
"micro evolution leads to macro evolution"
The big assumption in evolutionary thinking that is backed by no facts. You cannot verify this statement by anything but wishful thinking.
Your argument above is full of gibberish, nonsense, and a basic misunderstanding of evolution, it is full of stretches and made up terminology. Evolution is not the change of ones genes, it is when a specific unique trait in a species gives it the ability to adapt, survive, and reproduce while all other kinds of traits in the species die off. For example, giraffes used to be short necked antelope like creatures, over time certain giraffes were born with mutations that gave them longer necks, therefore they were able to reach higher food then the shorter necked giraffes. Eventually the longer necked "mutants" breeded with other longed necks and produced long necked offspring carrying their gene, while the shorter necked ones began to die off ass they were unable to reach the foods in the trees and were unable to reproduce, eventually all that was left were the long necked giraffes.
"For example, giraffes used to be short necked antelope like creatures, over time certain giraffes were born with mutations that gave them longer necks, therefore they were able to reach higher food then the shorter necked giraffes."
Funny you would mention that, because the giraffe has a problem, when it bends over to drink it's brain should explode from the pressure of gravity going down it's neck. It just happens that the brain has a special mechanism that slows the blood flow to the brain only when it bends down to drink. Also, it should faint when it bends up from the blood flowing out of his brain, but it has another mechanism that puts more blood in the brain only when it stands up. So the evolutionists problem is...how did it happen to evolve all those things at the same time without dying out? The first time the long necked mutants drank they would die off. I can't evolve in that state because it's dead! Also why did it's short necked counterparts die off while other short necked gazelles survive?
Besides all that, mutation can't be responsible as the main mechanism for evolution considering 99% of mutations are harmful. Please explain how a mutation rate that is much more harmful then good could take a simple organism to a much more complex one without killing it?
" Evolution is not the change of ones genes"
Really? So the genes of animals haven't changed at all in the evolution process?
" it is when a specific unique trait in a species gives it the ability to adapt, survive, and reproduce while all other kinds of traits in the species die off. "
Those traits come from the genes by the way.
And since those traits are in genes, where did they come from? Mutation? You mean the mutations that are almost always bad? This violates a principle known as genetic entropy, that the gene left to mutate becomes less and less organised as time goes on, just like if a copying machine were to copy the sentence "how are you" and make a mistake so instead it says "how are tou" and then another one "how are tou k" and eventually with these 'mutations' in the sentence it would be complete gibberish. Now you may argue that eventually it will say something intelligible over a long period of time, but that is irrelevant since the sentence has already turned to gibberish and the animal has already died.
"Your argument above is full of gibberish, nonsense, and a basic misunderstanding of evolution"
And yours is based on wishful thinking that is unsupported by any science.
Add info? WTF? Use some science terminology please so I know what you're talking about. If you mean evolution can't cause increased complexity in species your dead wrong.
Their big claim is that all micro evolution does is take something that works and breed it to become more prominent. Therefore, the genetic material must exist before for micro evolution to work. You need an explanation for how something that doesn't work can evolve into something that does work.
it can't add infomation.................................................................................................. as in there will never be a new kind of animal
But there is. A long time ago there was only fish and no land animals. It was advantageous for a fish to be able to breathe and go onto land. So when fish mutated to have lung type organs they then moved onto land to escape predators. These fish then survived and then it was advantageous to have legs to move on land. So they then evolved legs. And so on until the fish were now lizards. Lizards then moved out over the land and the ones in cold areas evolved to have fur and became mammals. The mammals then evolved in many different ways. Eventually we have chimps and humans and cats and so on.
From fish to cat. That seems like animal to animal to me. (That was a VERY over simplified explaination of evolution. It is WAY more complex than that).
There is. But it doesn't just spawn out of peanuts. In that jar there is moisture and bacteria. If left unattended, bacteria would grow and that's when you find mold. There wouldn't be any reason for that bacteria to evolve because it has the perfect conditions to live right there. Moisture, warmth, food. It's heaven for bacteria. And even if it were to evolve, it would take thousands of years, hell, MILLIONS until it would become something else and even then it probably wouldn't because there isn't enough of a population to sustain evolution. It takes a large population.
Things don't spawn out of peanutbutter. That man is also an idiot
The jar is airtight and packed with poisonous preservatives to kill things. Perfect conditions? The man didn't even thoroughly analyse the contents of the jar after he opened it, not that there would be much point. He didn't give it much time either.
If "info" is not one of the above, then your use of "info" is irrelevant to evolution.
There are lots of ways information is added to the genome:
- duplication (may or may not duplicate a full gene sequence)
- asymmetrical chiasma
- Trinucleotide repeats
- polymerase-catalyzed extensions (slippage)
- nucleotide and amino acid insertion
- frameshift mutations
- virus insertional mutagenesis
- polyploidy
Polyploidy has been found in the Red Viscacha-Rat, some frogs and toads (e.g. African clawed frog), salamanders, flatworms, roundworms, leeches, and brine shrimp, and many fish (goldfish, carp, neopterygii, trout, salmon, etc.) refrefrefrefref
frameshift events originate new gene segments: ref
observed formation of de novo genes in fruit flies: refrefref
phfffttttt...........Each new genome sequence affords novel opportunities for comparative genomic inference. What makes the analysis of these 12 Drosophila genomes special is the ability to place every one of these genomic comparisons on a phylogeny with a taxon separation that is idea for asking a wealth of questions about evolutionary patterns and processes. This is not proof of evolution, it is not proof of DNA being added to the genome. Fruit flies are still fruit flies. Doing studies believing evolution to generate more questions for more studies is a waste of time and money.
If you want to learn about evolution, go to an evolutionary biologist. If you want to learn about the Big bang theory, go to a theoretical physicist. If you want to learn about being stupid, go to Hovind. Don't believe me?:
(While Hovind doesn't appear in the video, he is the one who proposed this hypothesis)
Honestly, if creationists spent time studying and developing their own theories, instead of just trying to attack the competing theory, they would probably get somewhere.
When's the last you saw an article about creationism that doesn't mention evolution? This should be a good read for you (third paragraph, specifically):
I am thinking of an animal - can you guess which one?
It eats,
breathes,
moves,
poops,
has sex,
sleeps,
produces red and white blood cells,
and can feel fear and pain
It has:
a body with a head, torso and appendages
a brain with a memory
eyes that see in color
ears
taste glands
sense of smell
sense of touch
spinal chord
vertebrae
ribs
jaw
teeth
esophagus
stomach
intestines
gonads (testes/ovaries)
kidney
bladder
spleen
liver
pancreas
four chambered heart
skin
well... ?
Hint: you can even sometimes find them in a school...
It's a fish.
Whenever people start rambling about how major changes can't happen, I wonder if they realize that major changes haven't... Just lots of little changes over *lots of time.
Perfect evidence that the same Creator created the fish and the human, thank you for supporting our point!
Did you also notice that that animal doesn't has arms, legs, totally different breathing system that, if incomplete, would kill the animal, different bone composition, less and smaller teeth made of cartilage, a digestive system made to digest different things, different muscles, and different psychological behaviour. Your argument is truly irrelevant.
Did you also notice that that animal doesn't has arms, legs, totally different breathing system that, if incomplete, would kill the animal, different bone composition, less and smaller teeth made of cartilage, a digestive system made to digest different things, different muscles, and different psychological behaviour.
Proof that there wasn't a creator. Thanks for proving our point.
Did you also notice that that animal doesn't has arms, legs, totally different breathing system that, if incomplete, would kill the animal, different bone composition, less and smaller teeth made of cartilage, a digestive system made to digest different things, different muscles, and different psychological behaviour.
I didn't say that fish are people - just that they are very similar in many respects and that through a series of small changes (which we see evidence of in the fossil record), something more and more akin to us emerges.
I can use the same argument to back up my position
Actually, no, you can't.
If it is only a series of small changes, then you eliminate the (imagined) distinction between micro and macro and prove that Hovind is, of course, as silly as ever.
Animals reproducing only after their kind does not allow for transitional fossils between kinds. See other debate here if you would like to show that biblical kinds are supported.
