The top wrong assumptions i've came across when debating theist about evolution

[Guy Threepwood]

At no point in the process from "Wolves" to "Bulldogs" can anyone point to parents and say "Wolf" but then point to the offspring and say, "Bulldog".

Right, probably because dogs did not evolve from wolves for one thing, who's side are you on now?

 

[Revoltingest]

it's a very good question

That's why it's noticeable, & why I answer it.

 

[Midget01]

Yup, these are indeed common creationist notions. Creationists who've been around here for some time have been repeatedly disabused of their validity, and seldom bring them up any more. So it's the newbie creationists one most frequently encounters that keep up the challenge. Sometimes they're worth the effort, but most times not.

,

If I agreed with you then we'd both be wrong and to add to that then there would be no reason to talk. Well someone needed to correct Eve before she shared the apple with Adam. So there are always reasons to talk; just like there will always be other sides to the story that is how God created the world. This way we both have free will and do as we wish. So we can choose right or wrong and have them appear correct. It just depends on what we choose to believe. We as humans make it more complicated. Just like Creation story in the bible. It is not meant to be a scientific factual story and the number of days God took to create is not important. If we give anyone any number of days they do not have the ability to create. Science doesn't create anything; it reforms or reshapes everything that is already in this world. So the Bible is pointing out there is a God who can do wonderous things and we should be in awe of it. There are many theories as to how our world came into being because us humans can't admit that there is a God who loves us so much that He would create a place for us to live. The fact that many don't believe He exists is ok with Him. But they can't have their cake and eat it too. In the end when their lives stop; they can't change their mind about what happens to them because they have told themselves He doesn't exist. If they don't believe then what when they come face to face with Him. If He is merciful like we hear He may forgive and accept them but if they still can't accept then they will not enter His Kingdom. On Earth those who don't believe say they don't care. But to live in eternity separate maybe something else to bare. Just a thought!!!

 

[Midget01]

RNAs function as a sort of a "switch", They provide our genes with "instructions" how long to be developed.
This is a rather new discovery that changed our understanding of how DNA in general and genes in specifc work.
How awesome is that ?

WHile everyone is busy trying to decipher in detail which came first eccetra the fact still remains there was only one creator who produced the initial thing that sparked life and set everything into motion. So call it what you may but millions refer to Him as GOD, Allah, the Great One, the Spirit, the Creator, etc.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Revoltingest said: ↑
#5 - More "highly evolved" organisms should wipe out "less highly evolved" organisms.
It's the old "If man evolved, why are there still apes?".

it's a very good question

Not really a good question-- it presumes there is always and only the one location of whatever group we are speaking of.

If the parent group exists across multiple ecologies? Only the one where the new mutation, will become dominated by the new population within a few generations.

The remaining populations continue to thrive, slightly different ecologies which continue to favor the original stock.

Not all changes are 100% advantage, across 100% of possible places to live.

THAT is the most obvious retort to the very silly #5 "question".

The "question" ASSumes that "highly evolved" is a meaningful statement. It's not.

Evolution is about change-- the changes do not automagically mean "better". Most of the time they are simply different-- sometimes? The difference gives a slight advantage in a given ecology.


You do not BELIEVE in evolution: you either understand it? Or you do not. To date-- every single evolution denier--no exceptions-- do not understand. Either deliberately or because of a refusal to actually study the theory itself.

(notebook: reading deliberately false writings by evolution deniers, who are deliberately lying about it, example Behe, Ken Hamm, is not studying the actual theory)

 

[Midget01]

I Have never encountered a person who is not worth my efforts

You say strong faith does not mean things are true. If that is so then how can you say what you believe has any validity? You can no longer disprove our beliefs then we can yours. But the truth is if we are right in the end you are the loser and we have everything to gain. We have a reason for living the way we do. What gives your life meaning and reasons to exist? Please explain that for those of us who believe.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

WHile everyone is busy trying to decipher in detail which came first eccetra the fact still remains there was only one creator who produced the initial thing that sparked life and set everything into motion. So call it what you may but millions refer to Him as GOD, Allah, the Great One, the Spirit, the Creator, etc.

The above presumes things needed a creator. Okay-- what created the creator?

If you ignore your own rule? Then? So can we-- and say the universe doesn't need a creator either.

What? Oh-- the same excuse you use for your "creator"? We apply that to the universe.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, and you went on to concede that this is true..
Do you think it logical that God would set up all the excruciatingly precise engineering required to launch and support the first replicator-
then have no particular plan for the outcome to follow? Then the result of one sentient being in millions able to appreciate creation and deduce it's creator-- all a bizarre coincidence?

When Kepler discovered that planets orbit the sun in ellipses, he didn't produce a theory of gravity to explain it, nor did he give a theory of planet formation.

In exactly the same way, the theory of evolution describes how biological species change over time. It does not address, nor does it need to address abiogenesis.

We have the evidence that evolution happened. Whether evolution is the method a creator used to get a desired conclusion, or whether the events were not dictated by a creator at all is irrelevant.

And again, HOW the first living thing started is irrelevant to whether and how evolution occurs. It *is* an interesting question how the first life arose. And people are working on that very question. But it isn't the question that evolution addresses.

2. Species evolved from literally one living cell.

it's usually Darwinists that support the common ancestor theory, I'm with you that this is not probable, but getting from a single cell to a human by accidental design improvements- still a tricky thing no matter how many cells you start with!

That is NOT what he was saying! Look again at what he said. Species did not evolve from *literally* one single cell. Instead, there was a *population* of single celled organisms from which later life derived. Do you see the difference? The point is that it wasn't *literally* a single, lone cell. It was a population of many of such cells.

Agree with that statement too- you go on to give your belief in how macro evolution might work, this does nothing to alter the fact that there is no proof of it, quite the opposite

And again, there is *plenty* of evidence that macro-evolution happened. But even more, given micro-evolution and time, it is *inevitable* that macro-evolution will happen.

The fossil record, the math and direct experimentation all concur, species arrive abruptly, and continue in practical stasis with very limited variation.
This is borne out in the lab, where bacteria, flies, or even in dog breeding- there are strict limitations to alterations in body plans, inherent in the DNA code.

And that is wrong. The initial variation is limited, but if you leave out mutation you won't get a restoration of that variance. But *with* mutation, that variance is regained and further evolution is possible. In fact, again, in reproducing species with mutation and selection from the environment, macro-evolutionary changes are *inevitable*.

On baby steps, you highlight the paradox here.

As sentient beings, our concept of accumulating small micro benefits to cash in later on, seems so entirely intuitive it can be difficult to exclude this bias in our logic

But since evolution, so the theory goes, has no goal, purpose, desire, it cannot save anything for a rainy day, it lives in the present

so if any specific random mutation does not bestow a significant advantage, then that individual simply has no significant advantage, it will not significantly outperform it's competitors, it will not produce significantly more offspring, it will not significantly alter the gene pool, ever, zero evolution has taken place.

The degree of advantage does not have to be large to result in fixation in a population and spread over generations. Even an advantage of 1% will spread through a population in less than 100 generations. Most macro-evolutionary changes happen over the course of thousands to millions of generations.

 

[Polymath257]

it's a very good question

No, actually, it isn't. It is a stupid question, frankly.

Populations split. One sub-population goes to produce humans, the other to produce chimps.

Duh.

 

[Polymath257]

Right, probably because dogs did not evolve from wolves for one thing, who's side are you on now?

Wow. Just wow.

 

[Midget01]

Indeed,
There are several theories. we have no knowledge yet that can suggest which is the correct one.

Perhaps in a sense they are all correct because they are just theories and different ways of explaining the otherside of the coin. What difference does it make to believe in either version. Whoever put things into motion whether it be either type of evolution or creationism was a genious. Look how many people are still guessing millions of years later. There is an awesome God and few want to recognize it. One would wonder during the caveman times how many atheists there were then when all of life's miracles seemed to spring up around them and they couldn't explain them. The more intelligent man becomes the more stupid he reveals himself. Life is not as complicated as people want to make it.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Not really a good question-- it presumes there is always and only the one location of whatever group we are speaking of.

If the parent group exists across multiple ecologies? Only the one where the new mutation, will become dominated by the new population within a few generations.

The remaining populations continue to thrive, slightly different ecologies which continue to favor the original stock.

Not all changes are 100% advantage, across 100% of possible places to live.

THAT is the most obvious retort to the very silly #5 "question".

The "question" ASSumes that "highly evolved" is a meaningful statement. It's not.

Evolution is about change-- the changes do not automagically mean "better". Most of the time they are simply different-- sometimes? The difference gives a slight advantage in a given ecology.


You do not BELIEVE in evolution: you either understand it? Or you do not. To date-- every single evolution denier--no exceptions-- do not understand. Either deliberately or because of a refusal to actually study the theory itself.

(notebook: reading deliberately false writings by evolution deniers, who are deliberately lying about it, example Behe, Ken Hamm, is not studying the actual theory)

sticks and stones..

I don't think people who believe in evolution are silly, or 'deniers' or lying. I used to believe in it passionately also. We are dealing with an inherently speculative reconstruction of natural history. My first doubts were only raised in getting into the nitty gritty of trying to reconstruct the algorithms in computer simulations to demonstrate the process to 'deniers'

"Evolution is about change"

Agreed, change is inevitable in an algorithm where random mutations constantly corrupt the plans without a master copy to re-reference. As re-photocopying a document from successive generations instead of the original, this inevitably produces decline, degradation, decomposition, aka entropy.

If after 20 years, the same office memo looks good as new, we know somebody is copying from a master.

and this is not only what we see in the cold hard math, but with life also, only to a far greater extent/ generations

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Wow. Just wow.

Yes I know, it's been such a popular assumption since being proposed 150 years ago, learning otherwise can be almost shocking

But science has moved on, it's a wonderful thing



Dogs are not Domesticated Wolves | Accumulating Glitches | Learn Science at Scitable

Freedman AH, et al. Genome Sequencing Highlights the Dynamic Early History of Dogs. PLoS Genetics 10(1):e1004016. (2014) doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1004016
Press release from the University of Chicago.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes I know, it's been such a popular assumption since being proposed 150 years ago, learning otherwise can be almost shocking

But science has moved on, it's a wonderful thing



Dogs are not Domesticated Wolves | Accumulating Glitches | Learn Science at Scitable

Freedman AH, et al. Genome Sequencing Highlights the Dynamic Early History of Dogs. PLoS Genetics 10(1):e1004016. (2014) doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1004016
Press release from the University of Chicago.

This article doesn't say what you think it says. Of course dogs and wolves evolved separately after they split.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Right, probably because dogs did not evolve from wolves for one thing, who's side are you on now?

???

Dogs absolutely evolved from wolves! The DNA evidence is overwhelming in support of this-- in fact, all dogs share ancestors with modern wolves.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

???

Dogs absolutely evolved from wolves!

all dogs share ancestors with modern wolves.

Which is it Bob?


A widely held belief is that dogs evolved from gray wolves, but a new study finds that the common ancestor of dogs and wolves went extinct thousands of years ago.

Dogs are not Domesticated Wolves | Accumulating Glitches | Learn Science at Scitable

Freedman AH, et al. Genome Sequencing Highlights the Dynamic Early History of Dogs. PLoS Genetics 10(1):e1004016. (2014) doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1004016
Press release from the University of Chicago.

 

[leibowde84]

Prior to ToE, there was creation and creation scientists; We didn't even distinguish creation scientists from any other scientists. It was widely accepted by the world's population as history and science.

My thinking with complaints like this is evolutionists do not understand how evolution came to be, i.e. the evolution of evolution. There is a foundation and history behind it besides biology and that is based on evolutionary thinking and evolutionary origins. Otherwise, why do all the internet atheists claim creationists do not understand science and not biology? You can't have it both ways.

I'm okay in discussing biology with those who believe ToE. I can eliminate abiogenesis as science because it has been rendered pseudoscience and just rip into ToE; Abiogenesis hasn't made any significant findings since the Miller-Urey experiments of the 50s. Evolutionists should just accept this beating because it's not part of ToE. However, once I do that they give me mutation experiments which isn't actually creation of life. And I'm thinking, hey bud, I thought we were only going to discuss ToE or evolution?

Anyway, if you want to discuss ToE only, segev, it fails biologically because there is not enough evidence for it aside from natural selection. Most of what has been discovered is that Darwin was wrong. Creationists bring up the eye and how can evolution explain its evolution in such a short period of time. I bring up how flowers came to be or how the oak tree came to be. I even point out how complex an egg is compared to a chicken, and still get people who keep believing ToE. We have methods to explain natural selection, but no method to explain what happens to a horse after another ten million years or even fifty. We have nothing to explain why human lives are getting shorter and not longer if it is survival of the fittest. I've even asked myself why are there less white people now than before with evolution. You look at Darwin's chart and he's got white people up there on top. Is he wrong again?

Then there are those who claim evolution is fact. I tell them that if it's fact, then we can all use it like the earth is round. The sky is blue. Fish live in water. Christians go to church on Sunday. We can discuss why and not disagree on its origins or even discuss origins. I can't use we evolved from apes because apes aren't smart enough and they still act like apes. I tell them if evolution is fact, then why does practically every article I read on the subject tells me how long some plant or animal has been in existence, e.g. dinosaurs lived 35-40 million years ago. If it's fact, then leave it out, it's understood. What are these people afraid of? Moreover, why is how old something is of such importance? If we all buy evolution, then who cares how long ago they existed or started to exist. Do we care when we first discovered the robin? Or the rabbit? No. We want to know how and where they live, what they eat, how they can thrive. We do not try to tie them to an "ancestor." What? My rabbit didn't come from other rabbits? We may look up when they first appeared or how long they have been in existence, but do not try to figure out what they are related to? We may understand that it could be a hybrid on first glance. We may understand that a racing thoroughbred may have been artificially selected. ToE says every plant or animal on the planet has an ancestor besides their parents and immediate family. Why is that of such importance if there isn't enough evidence it and missing links? How does that help me in determining what the future holds?

If I understand segev correctly, then can we just leave out the origins? That would leave out the common ancestor theories, too? We won't discuss birds came from dinosaurs. Is this what this post is stating? Let's just discuss biology and not origins? Let's not discuss common ancestors.

Other items that evos give for ToE is comparative anatomy and genetic similarities. Just because creatures have similar anatomy or a high percentage of genes are the same does not mean they are related. Again, they go back in time millions of years ago. Why do we have to relate any creature to another creature by going back millions of years? If I understand your complaint, segev, you are attributing this to creationists? If ToE is all there is and all that there will be, then why argue about origins or common ancestors? Leave all your origins and common ancestor stories at the door.

Do creation "scientists" adhere to the scientific method?

Scientific Method:

1. Purpose/Question – What do you want to learn? An example would be, “What doorknob in school has the most germs ?” or “Do girls have faster reflexes than boys?” or “Does the color of a light bulb affect the growth of grass seeds?”
2. Research – Find out as much as you can. Look for information in books, on the internet, and by talking with teachers to get the most information you can before you start experimenting.
3. Hypothesis – After doing your research, try to predict the answer to the problem. Another term for hypothesis is ‘educated guess’. This is usually stated like ” If I…(do something) then…(this will occur)”
   An example would be, “If I grow grass seeds under green light bulbs, then they will grow faster than plants growing under red light bulbs.”
4. Experiment – The fun part! Design a test or procedure to find out if your hypothesis is correct. In our example, you would set up grass seeds under a green light bulb and seeds under a red light and observe each for a couple of weeks. You would also set up grass seeds under regular white light so that you can compare it with the others. If you are doing this for a science fair, you will probably have to write down exactly what you did for your experiment step by step.
5. Analysis – Record what happened during the experiment. Also known as ‘data’.
6. Conclusion – Review the data and check to see if your hypothesis was correct. If the grass under the green light bulb grew faster, then you proved your hypothesis, if not, your hypothesis was wrong. It is not “bad” if your hypothesis was wrong, because you still discovered something!

 

[leibowde84]

Which is it Bob?


A widely held belief is that dogs evolved from gray wolves, but a new study finds that the common ancestor of dogs and wolves went extinct thousands of years ago.

Dogs are not Domesticated Wolves | Accumulating Glitches | Learn Science at Scitable

Freedman AH, et al. Genome Sequencing Highlights the Dynamic Early History of Dogs. PLoS Genetics 10(1):e1004016. (2014) doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1004016
Press release from the University of Chicago.

Either way, they evolved from a different species. They didn't magically appear one day.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

sticks and stones..

I don't think people who believe in evolution are silly, or 'deniers' or lying. I used to believe in it passionately also. We are dealing with an inherently speculative reconstruction of natural history. My first doubts were only raised in getting into the nitty gritty of trying to reconstruct the algorithms in computer simulations to demonstrate the process to 'deniers'

"Evolution is about change"

Agreed, change is inevitable in an algorithm where random mutations constantly corrupt the plans without a master copy to re-reference. As re-photocopying a document from successive generations instead of the original, this inevitably produces decline, degradation, decomposition, aka entropy.

If after 20 years, the same office memo looks good as new, we know somebody is copying from a master.

and this is not only what we see in the cold hard math, but with life also, only to a far greater extent/ generations

You are in denial. Or you are being disingenuous with yourself.

Sorry, there isn't a nice way to put that-- nobody needs to BELIEVE in evolution.

You either understand it, or you do not-- clearly? YOU DO NOT.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Which is it Bob?


A widely held belief is that dogs evolved from gray wolves, but a new study finds that the common ancestor of dogs and wolves went extinct thousands of years ago.

Dogs are not Domesticated Wolves | Accumulating Glitches | Learn Science at Scitable

Freedman AH, et al. Genome Sequencing Highlights the Dynamic Early History of Dogs. PLoS Genetics 10(1):e1004016. (2014) doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1004016
Press release from the University of Chicago.

By your false "logic"? ALL animals went extinct 1000's of years ago! No exceptions!

What we have, today? Are the descendants. Wolves/dogs share a common ancestor-- which is the same as the colloquial statement "dogs came from wolves"

There is a word for your approach: Splitting Hairs.