- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Yes, and "Lottery tickets can never provide a winner because they are random". Except that we know that they do all the time. In fact I've already given an example of such a case which you have already conceded.
You are saying that random mutations would provide the solution to the organism's requirements. Given the fact that they are random, they would not provide the solution to whatever problem may be present. You also assume that mutations occur in a sequence that compliments each preceding phase, which eliminates the notion of any randomness. In addition, a single mutation in the DNA cannot cause a change in phenotype, given the number of genes that generate the features associated with the phenotype.
You will find that there are corrective mechanisms in place to eliminate the problems associated with mutations.
The example of the lottery is ineffective because it is a somewhat guided process compared to evolution.
You like nearly all other creationists ignore the fact that such traits don't have to have the same function, just as long as it has a function.
If it does not have a function that exists properly with the system in question than it could indeed be harmful or at least a useless expenditure of resources.
For example, a semi-formed wing even if it cannot provide flight it can still be beneficial for gliding.
That is assuming that the wing could form partially. You also ignore the utterly critical fact that not every stage of development would have a use.
Furthermore, that does not incorporate the crucial fact that such an organism requires much more than a wing to engage in flight or, indeed, utilize its wings. It requires the metabolism to ensure that it receives the proper level of nutrition to sustain flight, in addition to a musculoskeletal system and vascular system that provide it with the locomotive capabilities to use wings. Thus, one would find that many stages in the development of the wing would produce structures that would be useless.
"Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?"
-Charles Darwin, 1859
An eye which sees in black and white is better than no eye at all. A light sensitive cell is better than one that isn't. et cetera.
Once again, that ignores the crucial steps that would necessarily have to occur in between each stage of ocular development, as such an assembly is quite intricate.
Should I just take your word for it? You need to provide something substantial to support this opinion. You just stated that there wouldn't be a reason, you never said why.
I have iterated the explanation earlier, but will provide additional detail. Also, you should provide support for your perspective, not repeat statements with no proper description.
The human personality and mental development is quite advanced, much more so than any other organisms on Earth. That is indisputable, as neuroscience proves. As we are aware that other life forms have established forms of communication, it would be reasonable to suggest that the early humans would have as well. In fact, that is a belief held by the evolutionary community. As such, having developed a reasonable form of communication and development, why would there be any need to develop beyond that? You have yet to provide an effective response to this argument.
Emotions communicate to other members of the same species. Fear for example may communicate to other members that there is a potential danger nearby. Anger may indicate a conflict within a group, that needs to be rectified.
You will find that numerous organisms have established forms of communication. As they are capable of recognizing all of these problems, why would there be any need to develop emotions, which can actually hinder effective reactions to issues?
Every extinct species ever discovered.
This is false. There is no evidence that demonstrates the sizeable number of organisms that must have (according to evolutionary theory) experienced random, useless mutations which were genetically rectified in subsequent generations.
I am telling you that this is not how DNA works. There is no ciphering or processing organelle in cells, nor would there be a need for them. The same reason why raindrops don't need to calculate trajectory before falling to the earth, the molecules are simply responding to what is there (namely gravity).
I am not suggesting that the mechanism that you describe above is what actually exists. However, there are enzymes that conduct the processes that occur in gene expression. As such information theory conspires against evolution.
In addition, irreducible complexity is observed in the development of first cells. They could not have developed in stages, given that many of the features would have required other structures to sustain them.
Why do you debate if facts have no bearing on your position? Are you paid to argue? The point of debate is to find a solution, not to argue for a point simply for the sake of argument.
I do believe that I have provided sufficient support for my points. The purpose of debate, particularly of the informal, leisurely type found on this website is to serve as a forum where opposing ideas are compared and compete, not to find solutions.
I have indeed provided solutions for the issues here.
It is a ridiculous circle. Facts are facts. Our system is poor, every system with a public option or universal care spends less money on better care.
It seems that you are not aware of two key facts.
First, in the countries that provide any acceptable level of quality in healthcare, that must be funded by the government. Obviously, that money ultimately comes from taxpayers. Eventually, they will have to raise taxes to provide for the spending, while increasing the national debt levels.
Second, there are countries with such systems that already offer decreasing levels of care. Look at Canada and the U.K. as adequate examples. Waiting times have increased compared to the United States, in addition to harsh conditions in the hospitals and rampant corruption.
I don't see how any of this presents any problem to the theory of Evolution, you just have a few misconceptions about it.
Mutations will not function as providing adaptive properties, as they are random. As such, we cannot believe that they are the solution to evolutionary issues that may arise. In fact, there is no fossil evidence that demonstrates any of the forms that experienced all of the harmful mutations necessarily required by evolutionary theory and subsequently died out.
You have yet to prove that this is false.
None of the examples you listed represent irreducible complexity, whether or not you think that could have developed through evolutionary processes or not.
Many of the systems do illustrate irreducible complexity, as they would not function properly or at all without all of the parts being in existence. This indicates that you do not have a knowledge of what constitutes such a system.
Furthermore, there is no logical or scientific evidence to suggest that the development as required by evolution (in stages, with many useless developments occurring) could possibly occur. This means that, even if we are to assume that one or more of the phases actually produces a useful apparatus, that at the point where a useless structure is developed, the trait will not survive as a result of natural selection.
Yes, it would. Every non-useful structure would be eliminated, until a useful structure was found.
That assumes that a useful structure will necessarily be present at every stage of development. That is not true. In the ongoing evolutionary process, there would have to be biological structures that would serve no purpose, as they would not fulfill the ultimate role required by the change. If a random mutation were to produce a an alteration that may begin enable a sea dwelling organism to survive in a terrestrial environment, there is no reason to suggest that it would continue that pattern of development, especially as such a trait would not suit an aquatic life form. In fact, there are numerous genetic mechanisms in place to eliminate unnecessary mutations.
This is your argument
1. Verbal communication is useful in many animals
2. Therefore, there is no reason for complex speech to develop in humans
Not particularly. I am stating that there would be no reason for primitive man to develop advanced mental capabilities. As we have observed moderately advanced communicative and mental traits in other related species, it stands to reason, that at some point in this timeline, a similar mechanism would have developed at an earlier point. As such features would be adequate for their purposes, advanced traits such as ours would have had no need to develop. Indeed, humans have personalities and emotions (this is scientifically documented). Other animals also exhibit similar features. Of what possible use would personalities and many if not all emotions serve from an evolutionary standpoint?
Evolution works much like trial and error.
It is unfortunate that there is no fossil evidence of the trials that resulted in no gain. One would assume the existence of countless such fossils representing organisms that never passed on their genes.
Except this is not how DNA works. Micro-organisms do not "read" DNA like you and I read words. This requires a certain level of comprehension. This is the problem when people take certain analogies too literally. DNA is an acid, it is in itself a cause of various effects especially in meiosis. It is not the interpretation or comprehension of DNA but the DNA itself which affects the development of organisms, despite the fact that it is often described that way in literature.
I am quite aware of this. An simpler explanation of my point would be to state that such information is useless without any capability for it to be processed into whatever the particular segment might indicate. Indeed, the ability to process the information depends on already possessing it. However, DNA must provide a sequence that serves a function, or it is useless. How, then are we to assume that it arose in any understandable manner, rather than useless strands such as those found during a mutation?
So, in other words, the costs for the healthcare system is extremely high, which is the exact same criticism that we have come to expect from opponents of the great private system.
Privatized healthcare promotes innovation and ultimately causes novel treatments to become commonplace and, as a result of market forces, much cheaper.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!