Original Post
Evolution
I havn't seen a thread on this topic that isn't old so I thought I would make this.
Anyway , a little background. Evolution is the scientific theory that all life is a descendant of another animal. They would do this through mutation of their genes , for example if there was an animal that looked like a giraffe with a short neck , maybe one of those is born with a longer neck , letting them eat all the leaves previously unavailible to the short necked giraffes, meaning they are unlikely to die of starvation, meaning more time to mate , and pass on their genes, and thus on the road to being a successful animal. The biggest opponent to this scientific theory is the idea of Intelligent Design , which states all life on this planet was either created by a God , or by some outside force , and the forms of life have not changed since they got here. For a full description of evolution see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
Anyway , my opinions. From my perspective, the theory of evolution is by far the best explanation for the diversity of life on this planet. It has enough evidence to be a scientific theory (scientific theories are different from common theories , see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evoluti...act_and_theory for details) and I see no reason it shouldn't be taught in schools as fact. There are fossil records that support it, not to mention we can see it happening in such things as bacteria , as they get resistant to different drugs and such.
I would like to hear your side of the arguement , with your evidence for evolution or for intelligent design. As always , keep this civil.
Anyway , a little background. Evolution is the scientific theory that all life is a descendant of another animal. They would do this through mutation of their genes , for example if there was an animal that looked like a giraffe with a short neck , maybe one of those is born with a longer neck , letting them eat all the leaves previously unavailible to the short necked giraffes, meaning they are unlikely to die of starvation, meaning more time to mate , and pass on their genes, and thus on the road to being a successful animal. The biggest opponent to this scientific theory is the idea of Intelligent Design , which states all life on this planet was either created by a God , or by some outside force , and the forms of life have not changed since they got here. For a full description of evolution see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
Anyway , my opinions. From my perspective, the theory of evolution is by far the best explanation for the diversity of life on this planet. It has enough evidence to be a scientific theory (scientific theories are different from common theories , see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evoluti...act_and_theory for details) and I see no reason it shouldn't be taught in schools as fact. There are fossil records that support it, not to mention we can see it happening in such things as bacteria , as they get resistant to different drugs and such.
I would like to hear your side of the arguement , with your evidence for evolution or for intelligent design. As always , keep this civil.
If you are new to Judo , feel free to PM me for some tips/lessons |_-_| Steam name: Jaginun. ADD ME BEETCHES
First off, I'd like to put the same limits on this thread as was on the abortion thread and Water Cooler. Any stupid posts get infracted and deleted on sight, possibly even banned.
A creationist or the link would counter the evolution by saying that there isn't enough empirical proof or that it isn't a complete picture with too many missing links.
That's a pretty bad argument. There is enough fossil evidence and animal behaviors that show that at least on some level, evolution is possible. It is a concept that is pretty consistent with what we have found of the ancient planet. This is also how mostly all scientific theories come to be true. There doesn't need to be a missing link found.
Another rebuttal would be that, " it's so unlikely that it cannot be."
To refute this argument, I'll C/P my reply to someone who was actually using this argument in favor of intelligent design.
I can't think of any more counters to evolution at the moment.
Creationists so vehemently adhere to their beliefs because they think it is the only way for there to be a need for God's existence. Obviously, I don't think that's the case.
A creationist or the link would counter the evolution by saying that there isn't enough empirical proof or that it isn't a complete picture with too many missing links.
That's a pretty bad argument. There is enough fossil evidence and animal behaviors that show that at least on some level, evolution is possible. It is a concept that is pretty consistent with what we have found of the ancient planet. This is also how mostly all scientific theories come to be true. There doesn't need to be a missing link found.
Another rebuttal would be that, " it's so unlikely that it cannot be."
To refute this argument, I'll C/P my reply to someone who was actually using this argument in favor of intelligent design.
Originally Posted by RayA75
So what? The fact that is it even scientifically possible for us to have evolved at all disproves the literal Bible Genesis. I'll give you an example.
You sit down at a poker table the first time in your life. You get a straight flush. The chances of a straight flush are :
72,192.33 : 1 In terms of odds.
That is a pretty big number, and coupled with the fact that you got it sitting down at a poker table the first time in your life, the odds would obviously be tremendously improbable. So, is it more probable that the cards arranged themselves in a straight flush on purpose or that they simply happened to be arranged in a royal flush for you to receive on your first time playing poker?
The answer to this question is that likelihood does not matter. Improbable things happen, however long it takes to happen is irrelevant. For you to say that the cards did it on purpose, the action must be something that requires sentience and/or intelligence (something like, if the cards did your math homework for you). In this chain of events, in which you happened to sit at this poker table your first time playing, you happened to be sitting at the right seat, and you happen to have received the cards you did in the order you did for you to have a straight flush, sentience is not required.
Though, I don't even think evolution even posits an answer to if it's necessary for life to exist from nothing. It is the origin of species, not of life. A common misconception that you have seemed to taken as fact is that evolution explains the origin of life. If someone wants to correct me on that, feel free .The fact of the matter remains that it is possible for it to happen naturally.In this chain of events, in which primitive plant cells and animal cells become the complex plant and animals we see today through natural processes, sentience is not required, just like my poker example above.
Similarly, when arguing for the concept of a supernatural creator, you can only argue necessity. It is not necessary for a divine creator to have created all the life we see today. Whether it is or it is not necessary for a creator to have existed to exnihilate life in the first place is the debate in question, and saying it is very improbable and would take an assload of time to happen is an answer that is of similar vein to saying "it would've taken a while to make that mountain naturally so the stones did it because they are sentient."
I can't think of any more counters to evolution at the moment.
Creationists so vehemently adhere to their beliefs because they think it is the only way for there to be a need for God's existence. Obviously, I don't think that's the case.
Last edited by Ray; May 9, 2012 at 05:16 PM.
Mei fati dominus, mei animi dux
Need to PM a SMod?
Unofficial Skimmer of Discussion!
Fabula Magnus wants more able RPers!
Cataclysm is still alive?
Thorn
Wiggi must love me forever now.
...and I see no reason it shouldn't be taught in schools as fact.
Scientific theories ≠ facts. That certainly doesn't mean they can't be taught, but it does mean they shouldn't be taught as 'facts'. There are however, people that do not distinguish between the two and as a result there are still textbooks in which the existance of Piltdown man is presented as fact. (If you are not familiar - piltodownman turned out to be a hoax). My biggest problem with the theory of evolution is that it doesn't 'fit' the definition of a scientific theory as well as say, the theory of gravity:
"A scientific theory is a series of statements about the causal elements for observed phenomena. A critical component of a scientific theory is that it provides explanations and predictions that can be tested."
I have yet to see any predictions made by the theory of evolution hold true. The most absurd thing I have heard was something along the lines of 'macro evolution did happen, BUT, we shouldn't expect to see any evidence of this in our lifetimes'. Now I understand this is because it all takes time, but if I were to show you different pictures where I'm on the ground and then in the air at different ages through my lifetime and say: 'I can fly, but I will probably never show you.'. Would you believe me?
Originally Posted by Silligoose
I have yet to see any predictions made by the theory of evolution hold true.
Enjoy.
See also: Antibiotic resistance in bacteria. MRSA, for example.
See also also: The fact that artificial selection works.
Originally Posted by Silligoose
but if I were to show you different pictures where I'm on the ground and then in the air at different ages through my lifetime and say: 'I can fly, but I will probably never show you.'. Would you believe me?
... Aaaaaand you've oversimplified to the point of absurdity.
Last edited by hanz0; May 10, 2012 at 08:13 AM.
"i wish i could do that ken watanabe face where his eyes are really wide" -siku 2015
DONSELUKE, MASTER OF LAWSUIT
if you love america please sign this petition
B&B&B&
Originally Posted by Silligoose
Scientific theories ≠ facts. That certainly doesn't mean they can't be taught, but it does mean they shouldn't be taught as 'facts'. There are however, people that do not distinguish between the two and as a result there are still textbooks in which the existance of Piltdown man is presented as fact. (If you are not familiar - piltodownman turned out to be a hoax). My biggest problem with the theory of evolution is that it doesn't 'fit' the definition of a scientific theory as well as say, the theory of gravity:
"A scientific theory is a series of statements about the causal elements for observed phenomena. A critical component of a scientific theory is that it provides explanations and predictions that can be tested."
I have yet to see any predictions made by the theory of evolution hold true. The most absurd thing I have heard was something along the lines of 'macro evolution did happen, BUT, we shouldn't expect to see any evidence of this in our lifetimes'. Now I understand this is because it all takes time, but if I were to show you different pictures where I'm on the ground and then in the air at different ages through my lifetime and say: 'I can fly, but I will probably never show you.'. Would you believe me?
Perfect example of non-organic evolution:
Tribe A has spears
Tribe B has sticks
Tribe B has been hunting with sticks, and it isn't going to well, and they're running out of food.
Tribe A just brought down a mastodon, and are feasting on its calorie-packed fat.
Tribe B are becoming sick, and dying out, unable to kill anything to feed themselves.
Tribe A are flourishing.
Tribe B breaks apart, the smart people gathering any and all resources available and surviving. The dumb people die, unable to adapt.
A rather rough, but decent example of HUMAN evolution. Too many people assume evolution has to be something drastic, such as, growing gills after swimming or something absolutely ridiculous such as that.
Hoss.
