+- Sinisterly (https://sinister.li)
+-- Forum: General (https://sinister.li/Forum-General)
+--- Forum: The Lounge (https://sinister.li/Forum-The-Lounge)
+---- Forum: Serious Discussion (https://sinister.li/Forum-Serious-Discussion)
+---- Thread: Debate on Evolution (/Thread-Debate-on-Evolution)
Pages:
1
2
Debate on Evolution - m0dem - 12-08-2015
In this debate, we will be discussing the validity of evolution.
Apparently, you can't question the fact of evolution... so I decided to do just that.
Prove to me why I should have faith in evolution. And I (or possibly others) will try to debate that.
Remember, be honest and keep it friendly while still clearly state your points. You have a right to your opinion.
RE: Debate on Evolution - Megan - 12-08-2015
This http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/five-proofs-evolution
RE: Debate on Evolution - meow - 12-08-2015
(12-08-2015, 02:30 AM)m0dem Wrote: Prove to me why I should have faith in evolution.
You could prove that to yourself if you read up a little on biology regarding genetic mutations and natural selection.
Before you question something, ask yourself why you're questioning it. Is there a flaw in the theory that makes you not believe it?
And before you pull the card "how can it be a fact if it's called a theory hur hurr" let me just tell you that it being called a theory doesn't mean it hasn't been proven.
RE: Debate on Evolution - m0dem - 12-08-2015
@Megan and @meow, I found this very interesting.
Spoiler:
Recently a molecular biologist working on identifying genetic controls for diseases was interviewed by George Caylor of The Ledger, Lynchburg, Virginia. His article entitled, "The Biologist," appeared on February 17, 2000. I received permission to reproduce parts of the interview here, as a conversation between "G" (the interviewer) and "J" (the molecular biologist). It began by discussing the complexity of human code.
J: "I'm a bit like an editor, trying to find a spelling mistake inside a document larger than four complete sets of Encyclopedia Britanica."
G: "Do you believe that the information evolved?"
J: "George, nobody I know in my profession believes it evolved. It was engineered by 'genius beyond genius,' and such information could not have been written any other way. The paper and ink did not write the book! Knowing what we know, it is ridiculous to think otherwise."
G: "Have you ever stated that in a public lecture, or in any public writings?"
J: "No. I just say it evolved. To be a molecular biologist requires one to hold on to two insanities at all times. One, it would be insane to believe in evolution when you can see the truth for yourself. Two, it would be insane to say you don't believe in evolution. All government work, research grants, papers, big college lectures—everything would stop. I'd be out of a job, or relegated to the outer fringes where I couldn't earn a decent living."
G: "I hate to say it, but that sounds intellectually dishonest."
J: "The work I do in genetic research is honorable. We will find the cures to many of mankind's worst diseases. But in the meantime, we have to live with the 'elephant in the living room'."
G: "What elephant?"
J: "Creation design. It's like an elephant in the living room. It moves around, takes up an enormous amount of space, loudly trumpets, bumps into us, knocks things over, eats a ton of hay, and smells like an elephant. And yet we have to swear it isn't there!"
J: "I'm a bit like an editor, trying to find a spelling mistake inside a document larger than four complete sets of Encyclopedia Britanica."
G: "Do you believe that the information evolved?"
J: "George, nobody I know in my profession believes it evolved. It was engineered by 'genius beyond genius,' and such information could not have been written any other way. The paper and ink did not write the book! Knowing what we know, it is ridiculous to think otherwise."
G: "Have you ever stated that in a public lecture, or in any public writings?"
J: "No. I just say it evolved. To be a molecular biologist requires one to hold on to two insanities at all times. One, it would be insane to believe in evolution when you can see the truth for yourself. Two, it would be insane to say you don't believe in evolution. All government work, research grants, papers, big college lectures—everything would stop. I'd be out of a job, or relegated to the outer fringes where I couldn't earn a decent living."
G: "I hate to say it, but that sounds intellectually dishonest."
J: "The work I do in genetic research is honorable. We will find the cures to many of mankind's worst diseases. But in the meantime, we have to live with the 'elephant in the living room'."
G: "What elephant?"
J: "Creation design. It's like an elephant in the living room. It moves around, takes up an enormous amount of space, loudly trumpets, bumps into us, knocks things over, eats a ton of hay, and smells like an elephant. And yet we have to swear it isn't there!"
source: https://www.icr.org/article/760
Also, @Megan, most of those points in the "Five Proofs of Evolution" are about the commonality between humans and other creatures (note that word, creature, sounds quite similar to creation...). For example:
Quote:Human beings have approximately 96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in common with cats (source), 80% with cows (source), 75% with mice (source), and so on.Interesting... you see that as a proof of evolution... I see that as one intelligent Programmer...
(literally a programmer, DNA is code)
You never saw a computer create itself from nothing and then code up an OS, right? ... I hope not.
RE: Debate on Evolution - Nil - 12-08-2015
Evolution is as sound of a theory as any theory out there. On the micro-level, we can measure, and observe evolution through our own perspectives. On the macro-level, every study and research suggest that evolution has happened. While macro-evolution can't be easily observed like the micro-level, we can use fossils and DNA to make predictions of future findings that have over and over been precisely accurate. These hypotheses have been tested through different branches of science such as geology, biology and archaeology. There is not a single counter theory that has emerged or been thought of that rivals evolution or explains anything to the accuracy of what our current theory states. In fact, each new study that comes up strengthens our current theory and applies it as a fundamental concept to our understanding of the world.
I don't believe there's any argument against evolution unless you're being intellectually dishonest. A theory is a substantiated explanation on our natural world based on facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through our experimentation and observation. That is what evolution is. That is what gravity is. that is the basis in which we explain our world. It's the very foundation of our understanding of the world and for anyone to dismiss theories without an extremely convincing counter-theory is doing themselves a disservice and probably has a very skewed perception of their surroundings.
If your questions is to prove to you why you should have faith in evolution, then here's some food for thought. Faith is defined as, "complete trust or confidence in someone or something." Faith is gained when we are confident and can trust something. How do we gain trust? We gain trust be REPEATEDLY producing the same result, the same expectation. That is exactly what evolution does, has been doing for years, and will continue to do so. That is the essence of building trust and having faith. I'd argue you'd need more faith to reject evolution and put your trust and confidence into something much less observed, experimented, and substantiated.
RE: Debate on Evolution - m0dem - 12-08-2015
(12-08-2015, 06:19 AM)God Wrote: Evolution is as sound of a theory as any theory out there. On the micro-level, we can measure, and observe evolution through our own perspectives. On the macro-level, every study and research suggest that evolution has happened. While macro-evolution can't be easily observed like the micro-level, we can use fossils and DNA to make predictions of future findings that have over and over been precisely accurate. These hypothesis have been tested through different branches of science such as geology, biology and archaeology. There is not a single counter theory that has emerged or been thought of that rivals evolution or explains anything to the accuracy of what our current theory states. In fact, each new study that comes up strengthens our current theory and applies it as a fundamental concept to our understanding of the world.
I don't believe there's any argument against evolution unless you're being intellectually dishonest. A theory is a substantiated explanation on our natural world based on facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through our experimentation and observation. That is what evolution is. That is what gravity is. that is the basis in which we explain our world. It's the very foundation of our understanding of the world and for anyone to dismiss theories without an extremely convincing counter-theory is doing themselves a disservice and probably has a very skewed perception of their surroundings.
If your questions is to prove to you why you should have faith in evolution, then here's some food for thought. Faith is defined as, "complete trust or confidence in someone or something." Faith is gained when we are confident and can trust something. How do we gain trust? We gain trust be REPEATEDLY producing the same result, the same expectation. That is exactly what evolution does, has been doing for years, and will continue to do so. That is the essence of building trust and having faith. I'd argue you'd need more faith to reject evolution and put your trust and confidence into something much less observed, experimented, and substantiated.
Evolution is a theory. Gravity is not a theory.
Everyone believes in the existence of gravity. Not everyone believes in the validity of evolution.
BTW: It's all fine and dandy... but do you even have any sources?
Stop and think for a moment.
And if these creatures were evolving over time into better creatures... why wouldn't there be only a single "master race"?
RE: Debate on Evolution - Nil - 12-08-2015
(12-08-2015, 07:00 AM)m0dem Wrote: Evolution is a theory. Gravity is not a theory.
Everyone believes in the existence of gravity. Not everyone believes in the validity of evolution.
BTW: It's all fine and dandy... but do you even have any sources?
Stop and think for a moment.
And if these creatures were evolving over time into better creatures... why wouldn't there be only a single "master race"?
Science doesn't deal with belief. Belief doesn't change empirical evidence. To me it seems like you're confusing a scientific theory with the way non-scientists use the word theory in every day life. A theory isn't just some explanation someone formulated in their mind once upon a time and thought it sounded plausible. A scientific theory is as sound as it comes. There is a theory of evolution and a theory of gravity.
I'll be able to go more in depth on a later date. I need to sleep right now and I'm a little busy atm so I apologize ahead of time.
Another misconception you seem to be under is the evolution = progression. Species evolve and mutate, but that doesn't always objectively mean into 'better" creatures. Regardless, better is subjective to the observer.
RE: Debate on Evolution - m0dem - 12-08-2015
(12-08-2015, 07:22 AM)Reimu Wrote: Actualy, if you think about it, everything is a theory. You cannot actually fully prove anything. A concept imperfect beings create is imperfect.This is so true.
(12-08-2015, 08:04 AM)God Wrote: Science doesn't deal with belief. Belief doesn't change empirical evidence. To me it seems like you're confusing a scientific theory with the way non-scientists use the word theory in every day life. A theory isn't just some explanation someone formulated in their mind once upon a time and thought it sounded plausible. A scientific theory is as sound as it comes. There is a theory of evolution and a theory of gravity.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary states these three definitions of "theory":
Quote:: an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or eventsEvolution is #2 and gravity is #1 and #3.
: an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true
: the general principles or ideas that relate to a particular subject
(12-08-2015, 08:04 AM)God Wrote: I'll be able to go more in depth on a later date. I need to sleep right now and I'm a little busy atm so I apologize ahead of time.It's okay, we all have a real life.
(12-08-2015, 08:04 AM)God Wrote: Another misconception you seem to be under is the evolution = progression. Species evolve and mutate, but that doesn't always objectively mean into 'better" creatures. Regardless, better is subjective to the observer.So, you do believe evolution is chance?
RE: Debate on Evolution - Nil - 12-08-2015
(12-08-2015, 03:49 PM)m0dem Wrote: This is so true.That's the thing. We're not going to be using the typical definition for theory when we're discussing scientific matters.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary states these three definitions of "theory":
Evolution is #2 and gravity is #1 and #3.
It's okay, we all have a real life.
So, you do believe evolution is chance?
A "scientific theory" - "a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation: "
"Systematic ideational structure of broad scope, conceived by the human imagination, that encompasses a family of empirical (experiential) laws regarding regularities existing in objects and events, both observed and posited. A scientific theory is a structure suggested by these laws and is devised to explain them in a scientifically rational manner."
Gravitational theories and the theory of evolution == theories.
Quote:So, you do believe evolution is chance?
Evolution isn't entirely by chance, although chance is in the equation. When organisms adapt through natural selection, that is not by chance. They evolved because they were better able to survive and reproduce in the environment's current state. On the other hand, mutations are random. While evolution by natural selection basically deals with adaptations based on the "needs" of the organisms, mutations ignore needs. They aren't always beneficial even. That is the broad definition of mutation. Of course, there is directed mutagenesis which is arguably non-random and in response to external stresses.
RE: Debate on Evolution - meow - 12-09-2015
(12-08-2015, 05:41 AM)m0dem Wrote: @Megan and @meow, I found this very interesting.
Spoiler:
Recently a molecular biologist working on identifying genetic controls for diseases was interviewed by George Caylor of The Ledger, Lynchburg, Virginia. His article entitled, "The Biologist," appeared on February 17, 2000. I received permission to reproduce parts of the interview here, as a conversation between "G" (the interviewer) and "J" (the molecular biologist). It began by discussing the complexity of human code.
J: "I'm a bit like an editor, trying to find a spelling mistake inside a document larger than four complete sets of Encyclopedia Britanica."
G: "Do you believe that the information evolved?"
J: "George, nobody I know in my profession believes it evolved. It was engineered by 'genius beyond genius,' and such information could not have been written any other way. The paper and ink did not write the book! Knowing what we know, it is ridiculous to think otherwise."
G: "Have you ever stated that in a public lecture, or in any public writings?"
J: "No. I just say it evolved. To be a molecular biologist requires one to hold on to two insanities at all times. One, it would be insane to believe in evolution when you can see the truth for yourself. Two, it would be insane to say you don't believe in evolution. All government work, research grants, papers, big college lectures—everything would stop. I'd be out of a job, or relegated to the outer fringes where I couldn't earn a decent living."
G: "I hate to say it, but that sounds intellectually dishonest."
J: "The work I do in genetic research is honorable. We will find the cures to many of mankind's worst diseases. But in the meantime, we have to live with the 'elephant in the living room'."
G: "What elephant?"
J: "Creation design. It's like an elephant in the living room. It moves around, takes up an enormous amount of space, loudly trumpets, bumps into us, knocks things over, eats a ton of hay, and smells like an elephant. And yet we have to swear it isn't there!"
source: https://www.icr.org/article/760
Also, @Megan, most of those points in the "Five Proofs of Evolution" are about the commonality between humans and other creatures (note that word, creature, sounds quite similar to creation...). For example:
Interesting... you see that as a proof of evolution... I see that as one intelligent Programmer...
(literally a programmer, DNA is code)
You never saw a computer create itself from nothing and then code up an OS, right? ... I hope not.
You didn't educate yourself at all after my or Megan's posts... if your argument is a conversation between a reporter and biologist then you should probably study the subject a little more before trying to start a debate about it. It seems like all you did was google "biologist who doesn't believe in evolution" to make us look stupid.