• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:926]The central evolution problem

Re: The central evolution problem

Actually there is a lot of evidence for Darwin's theory. E.g. look at the fossil evidence for human evolution, or the ordering in the fossil record, or the matching retrovirus DNA in humans and apes. See these links for a lot more examples.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
https://www.khanacademy.org/science...l-selection/a/lines-of-evidence-for-evolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent


There is plenty of evidence for common descent and its more than just the evidence for the process of evolution. Look at the links I provided.

I never said anything against common descent. I said evolution is true. Please, read what I wrote.
 
Re: The central evolution problem

I never said anything against common descent. I said evolution is true. Please, read what I wrote.

Just explain what you find not reasonable or have any evidence against in the thoery of evolution.
 
Re: The central evolution problem

It would be good if you knew smething about the subject before you spouted on about it.

I know a lot about the subject. Not just what they teach in biology classes, which is automatically and mindlessly repeated. Hardly anyone actually thinks about this.
 
Re: The central evolution problem

I know a lot about the subject. Not just what they teach in biology classes, which is automatically and mindlessly repeated. Hardly anyone actually thinks about this.

I once wrote an essay about species specific predation (parisitism) as a driver of mono-niche species diversity.

Lots of people think a lot about this all the time.
 
Re: The central evolution problem

Atheism and materialism have been around for a long time, at least since ancient Greece. There was always tension between science and the authority of the Catholic church, and religion in general. Atheism was sometimes a kind of defiance, a rebellion against dogmatic authoritarianism.

In the 19th century, Darwin's idea about the cause of evolution seemed to support atheism. Evolution was not a new idea, but Darwin's theory was new. He speculated that random variations occur, and the most successful of these variations are the most likely to survive and reproduce. Well how could that not be true? And does it actually explain evolution?

But somehow it seemed to be a breakthrough in scientific understanding.

In the 20th century DNA was discovered, and it seemed to validate Darwin's theory of how evolution may have happened.

Remember that evolution theory was around long before Darwin. What was new and different about Darwin's theory was that it said evolution could have happened entirely by chance, without any direction from any kind of supernatural forces or beings or gods.

The 20th century science of genetics supposedly verified Darwin's theory, and it made atheism seem plausible and scientific.

Then we had Richard Dawkins and the New Atheism.

And here we are now, with an increasing number of New Atheists, materialists, rationalists, naturalists, etc. In other words, denial of the supernatural, of spirit.

Ok, is there anything wrong with all that? Well yes, there is. Darwin's theory has not been verified scientifically. Actually, there is no evidence for it. And it is wildly improbable.

So why do so many educated people believe it? Misunderstandings, trickery, politics.

The scientific evidence is for evolution. Evolution is not debatable, because we have enough evidence for it. But how and why evolution happened is as much as mystery as ever.

Natural selection (Darwin's theory) is a fact. How could it not be? It says that individuals who are capable of surviving are more likely to survive. In other words, it says nothing. But it is a nothing that had not been said before.

Natural selection does explain certain things. But does it explain evolution? Lots of people say it does. But how do they know? They don't know, they just think they know.

The trickery is in pretending that evidence for evolution is evidence for Darwin's theory of evolution.

Intelligent Design theory says that evolution could not happen by chance. But ID has been called creationism and banned from science education.

One of the most important questions of our time -- Could life have evolved by chance? -- can't be asked or answered because it's all tangled up in misunderstandings and confusion.

How do you account for all the unsuccessful mutations that do not improve a species members chances of survival?

If it was by design why all the "wasted" experiments?
 
Re: The central evolution problem

I never said anything against common descent. I said evolution is true. Please, read what I wrote.

Do you believe Darwin's theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor and this happened through a process of natural seiection and mutations?
 
Last edited:
Re: The central evolution problem

How do you account for all the unsuccessful mutations that do not improve a species members chances of survival?

If it was by design why all the "wasted" experiments?

I never said it was all by design. I never said there are no errors. I said errors plus natural selection do not explain the origin of new more complex species. At least, we have no scientific or logical reason to believe that hypothesis.
 
Re: The central evolution problem

Do you believe Darwin's theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor and this happened through a process of natural seiection and mutations?

I believe that all life evolved. I don't think anyone knows if there was just one common ancestor.

And yes it probably happened through a process of natural selection and mutations. What else could it be?

But it is WRONG to assume, without any evidence, that all the genetic mutations leading to the origins of new species were/are errors.
 
Re: The central evolution problem

I never said it was all by design. I never said there are no errors. I said errors plus natural selection do not explain the origin of new more complex species. At least, we have no scientific or logical reason to believe that hypothesis.

We do see "transitional" forms.

Mudskippers come to mind.

They have fins that act as legs, which could transform into actual legs over time, and the ability to breathe air, whcih could transform through the process of mutation and natural selection.

Your position is just a variant of many that refuse to acknowledge the time scales necessary for the kind of speciation you want explained. We have already seen many new species, defined by becoming unable to reproduce with the "parent" stock. As well as complex new traits.
 
Re: The central evolution problem

I believe that all life evolved. I don't think anyone knows if there was just one common ancestor.

And yes it probably happened through a process of natural selection and mutations. What else could it be?

But it is WRONG to assume, without any evidence, that all the genetic mutations leading to the origins of new species were/are errors.

The fossil record shows life evolving in each of its layers starting from very small life at the bottom to very large. Also, when you compare the DNA of all organisms including bacteria, we see a family tree. In addition, all life has a shared language that is DNA and shares a lot of features including humans and the simplest bacteria. It is very likely all life is related and part of a family tree even if you doubt exactly one common ancestor.

Genetic mutations aren't errors. They are just variations from the parent's DNA at birth. Some of these variations are beneficial, some are harmful, and most are neutral.
 
Re: The central evolution problem

I believe that all life evolved. I don't think anyone knows if there was just one common ancestor.

And yes it probably happened through a process of natural selection and mutations. What else could it be?

But it is WRONG to assume, without any evidence, that all the genetic mutations leading to the origins of new species were/are errors.

The errors are what is eliminated in natural selection.

Mutations that improve reproduction rates survive.
 
Re: The central evolution problem

I never said anything against common descent. I said evolution is true. Please, read what I wrote.

So natural selection is true?
 
Re: The central evolution problem

I know a lot about the subject. Not just what they teach in biology classes, which is automatically and mindlessly repeated. Hardly anyone actually thinks about this.

Wrong.
 
Re: The central evolution problem

I never said it was all by design. I never said there are no errors. I said errors plus natural selection do not explain the origin of new more complex species. At least, we have no scientific or logical reason to believe that hypothesis.

So what is your hypothesis? You are very vague.
 
Re: The central evolution problem

Evolution is true. I said that already. Natural selection is true -- it can't not be true.

But we have NO evidence that natural selection causes evolution.

Please try to pay attention.

Pleases provide support for your claim that 'we have no evidence that natural selection causes evolution.' How does that 'we have no evidence fothat natural selection causes evolution' match up with what biologists actually say??? Can you defined what biologists say the process of natural selection is, and give real life examples of this?

Also, to level set your understanding, what is the definition of biological evolution per biologists? Do you know??? Can you show that you know and understand what biologists say biological evolution is?
 
Re: The central evolution problem

Pleases provide support for your claim that 'we have no evidence that natural selection causes evolution.' How does that 'we have no evidence fothat natural selection causes evolution' match up with what biologists actually say??? Can you defined what biologists say the process of natural selection is, and give real life examples of this?

Also, to level set your understanding, what is the definition of biological evolution per biologists? Do you know??? Can you show that you know and understand what biologists say biological evolution is?

I am waiting for that evidence.
 
Re: The central evolution problem

Intelligent design is merely a mathematical approach showing that neo-Darwinism must be wrong. It does NOT provide any alternative explanation.

No it's not


And yes it does.


ID states that an intelligent being (a god or gods) constructed all animals and plants.


That is a total polar opposite of evolution....which states that all animals and plants today has a common ancestor.


ID states all animals and plants were created in basically the same form we see them today.

ID admits that a species - say horses - can evolve to be faster and stronger but they are still horses and were created as such.


I think you need to read more on creationism and ID.
 
Re: The central evolution problem

No it's not


And yes it does.


ID states that an intelligent being (a god or gods) constructed all animals and plants.


That is a total polar opposite of evolution....which states that all animals and plants today has a common ancestor.


ID states all animals and plants were created in basically the same form we see them today.

ID admits that a species - say horses - can evolve to be faster and stronger but they are still horses and were created as such.


I think you need to read more on creationism and ID.

I agree. He doesn't seem to know a lot about the subject.
 
Re: The central evolution problem

We do see "transitional" forms.

Mudskippers come to mind.

They have fins that act as legs, which could transform into actual legs over time, and the ability to breathe air, whcih could transform through the process of mutation and natural selection.

Your position is just a variant of many that refuse to acknowledge the time scales necessary for the kind of speciation you want explained. We have already seen many new species, defined by becoming unable to reproduce with the "parent" stock. As well as complex new traits.

I KNOW that new species evolved! I just said that we have no verified theory that explains how that happened.
 
Re: The central evolution problem

The errors are what is eliminated in natural selection.

Mutations that improve reproduction rates survive.

Yeah that's the hypothesis I have been explaining. There is no evidence that it can account for the origin of new species.
 
Re: The central evolution problem

The fossil record shows life evolving in each of its layers starting from very small life at the bottom to very large. Also, when you compare the DNA of all organisms including bacteria, we see a family tree. In addition, all life has a shared language that is DNA and shares a lot of features including humans and the simplest bacteria. It is very likely all life is related and part of a family tree even if you doubt exactly one common ancestor.

Genetic mutations aren't errors. They are just variations from the parent's DNA at birth. Some of these variations are beneficial, some are harmful, and most are neutral.

Oh come on. I said evolution is a fact. Stop trying to convince me of something I already said is a fact.

And WHY do you think those mutations happen if they aren't errors? Neo-Darwinism says they are all errors.
 
Re: The central evolution problem

So what is your hypothesis? You are very vague.

I never said I have a hypothesis. I said the currently popular hypothesis has no evidence to back it up. If we want to be scientific, then we should expect evidence before a hypothesis becomes widely accepted.

And you do not need to have an alternative hypothesis to say that the currently popular one has no evidence.
 
Re: The central evolution problem

I KNOW that new species evolved! I just said that we have no verified theory that explains how that happened.

Sounds like your talking about abiogenesis, not evolution.

While I don't believe in jahweh, "evolution as the mechanism of creation" was the obvious answer when I did as a kid.

Baking the "cake" instead of just manifesting it
 
Back
Top Bottom