• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why do Evolutionists not like to actually debate Evolution and rely on personal attacks?

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
Evolution does not explain how one species becomes another. Yet, I'll give you that. OK?

Oh, it does. It does. We spent a couple of weeks on that topic alone.

Gene pool, environmental niche, bottle necks, pressure selections, and so much more, were all part of doing that. It's all built upon each other. Genetic drift, genetic segregation, I can't remember it all. I would have to open up the books, but the answer to your claim there is that it explains it to a very large extent and very deeply too.

There are things still in evolution theory that lacks proper explanations, but the general picture and even to many areas with detail, it's evident and very clear that evolution is true.
 

Falvlun

Earthbending Lemur
Premium Member
Sorry if you heard just one mutation is needed. I didn't say that. It is a skill that is needed only for speed of sound flight but people know how. It's a mystery imo. .

You honestly think that quick reactions and complex thinking is only useful for flying jets?
 

FranklinMichaelV.3

Well-Known Member
Sure, classification is a language construct. A convenience. A way of describing things. Giving things new or different names makes no difference to the truth of what they actually are.It's important to understand that before you tackle the fact that scientists are always quibbling over what a species is, and whether they've found a new one, and how many there are. If you don't get that they're only talking about what to call things, it might seem like there is uncertainty about what things actually are.

There isn't. We know a great deal about who is related to who, and how, and how long ago they shared a common ancestor, mostly because of DNA, which mutates at a fairly predictable rate.

A "species" is generally considered a reproductively isolated group: an organism that can only reproduce with others of the same type. That definition doesn't necessarily work for everything (plants and asexually reproducing organisms, for example), but it's a good starting point.

When a number of different species are descended from a common ancestor fairly recently, like for example dogs, wolves, foxes, badgers, weasels, jackals, etc. that entire group also gets its own name. In this case, Canidae. That's called a family. In between, there is a level called genus, where you've got all the wolf species, all the dog species, all the fox species, etc. grouped together. The common ancestry within these groups is more recent than the rest of the family, so the morphological differences are smaller.

Above the family, reaching even further back, you have other levels of common ancestry with an ever increasing number of other species at different times in the past.

And so it goes, like this:

150px-Biological_classification_L_Pengo_vflip.svg.png


Pro memory tip: "Keep Plates Clean Or Family Gets Sick".(You don't really need to remember Life or Domain - there are only 3 domains, and 1 "life")

The idea is, every level here represents common genetic ancestry with other species, with the most recent speciation at the bottom and the most ancient at the top.

Originally, before we had access to DNA evidence, which provides incredible refinement to our understanding of how things are related, we went by morphological similarity. We now understand better than ever what things actually are, so what we call them shifts around as new evidence arises.

To use the example of dogs, the classification would be like so:

Life - (everything)
Domain - Eukarya (multi-cellular organisms)
Kingdom - Animalia (all animals)
Phylum - Chordata (animals with spines)
Class - Mammalia (all mammals)
Order - Carnivora (all meat-eating mammals)
Family - Canidae (all dog-like creatures)
Genus - Canis (all dogs)
Species - Canis familiaris (all domestic dogs)

Again correct me when I'm wrong I feel that when people say "why do cats not give birth to dogs, it's because they aren't talking about species but about Genus's
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
You honestly think that quick reactions and complex thinking is only useful for flying jets?

Oh hum. No I do not. We are talking about evolution. I can not imagine very quick reactions were necessary along with complex maneuvers before the industrial revolution. Can you give me an example where it would have been needed for development so it would evolve to be present now?
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Oh, it does. It does. We spent a couple of weeks on that topic alone.

Gene pool, environmental niche, bottle necks, pressure selections, and so much more, were all part of doing that. It's all built upon each other. Genetic drift, genetic segregation, I can't remember it all. I would have to open up the books, but the answer to your claim there is that it explains it to a very large extent and very deeply too.

There are things still in evolution theory that lacks proper explanations, but the general picture and even to many areas with detail, it's evident and very clear that evolution is true.

We have the same kind of proof God is true.
 

Falvlun

Earthbending Lemur
Premium Member
Oh hum. No I do not. We are talking about evolution. I can not imagine very quick reactions were necessary along with complex maneuvers before the industrial revolution. Can you give me an example where it would have been needed for development so it would evolve to be present now?

Sword fighting?

Spearing a wild animal?

Grabbing your baby before it fell out of a tree?

Regardless, your line of questioning is difficult simply because your chosen trait is not very well delineated. Can you define, in terms of reaction time, the difference between "very quick" and "merely quick"? Can you prove that people pre-industrial revolution did not have reaction times in the "very quick" range? Merely assuming that they didn't isn't a very strong argument against evolution.
 

FranklinMichaelV.3

Well-Known Member
Sword fighting?

Spearing a wild animal?

Grabbing your baby before it fell out of a tree?

Regardless, your line of questioning is difficult simply because your chosen trait is not very well delineated. Can you define, in terms of reaction time, the difference between "very quick" and "merely quick"? Can you prove that people pre-industrial revolution did not have reaction times in the "very quick" range? Merely assuming that they didn't isn't a very strong argument against evolution.

The thing is those people who fly fighter jets...aren't the norm. Wouldn't their reaction time be faster than the overall population?
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Oh hum. No I do not. We are talking about evolution. I can not imagine very quick reactions were necessary along with complex maneuvers before the industrial revolution. Can you give me an example where it would have been needed for development so it would evolve to be present now?

Mutations do not happen because they are needed. They happen accidentally and are selected because they are useful for survival and reproduction.
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Sword fighting?

Spearing a wild animal?

Grabbing your baby before it fell out of a tree?

Regardless, your line of questioning is difficult simply because your chosen trait is not very well delineated. Can you define, in terms of reaction time, the difference between "very quick" and "merely quick"? Can you prove that people pre-industrial revolution did not have reaction times in the "very quick" range? Merely assuming that they didn't isn't a very strong argument against evolution.

Those are good examples. I did think of hunting. Sword fighting I can go with because it requires multiple counter moves. Catching a baby and spearing an animal is one thing. The ancestors of jet pilots are sword fighters. Mystery solved! Thank you. No frubal for you.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
Again correct me when I'm wrong I feel that when people say "why do cats not give birth to dogs, it's because they aren't talking about species but about Genus's

I think it's because they have not grasped that evolution predicts that the accumulation of very small - usually imperceptible - changes between one generation and the next produces large changes over many generations. Somebody seems to have told them in church that evolution predicts enormous, observable, species-level changes between one single generation and the next, so that's where they're coming from. It's a "GOTCHA!" question. They've been told in church this is such a significant "GOTCHA" that it disproves evolution, when really it just makes their ignorance of the entire subject shine like the sun.
 

Falvlun

Earthbending Lemur
Premium Member
The thing is those people who fly fighter jets...aren't the norm. Wouldn't their reaction time be faster than the overall population?

Possibly. (There is the likelihood that there are other fast reactioners in the general populace that chose to go into different professions.)

But I don't see why this should be considered an issue for evolution.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
Oh hum. No I do not. We are talking about evolution. I can not imagine very quick reactions were necessary along with complex maneuvers before the industrial revolution. Can you give me an example where it would have been needed for development so it would evolve to be present now?

Of course they were needed. You don't need to run faster than the tiger, you only need to run faster than the slowest human. That way, the tiger eats the slow people and the fast people reproduce more. Over time, we get quicker and quicker.
 

Enai de a lukal

Well-Known Member
I think it's because they have not grasped that evolution predicts that the accumulation of very small - usually imperceptible - changes between one generation and the next produces large changes over many generations. Somebody seems to have told them in church that evolution predicts enormous, observable, species-level changes between one single generation and the next, so that's where they're coming from. It's a "GOTCHA!" question. They've been told in church this is such a significant "GOTCHA" that it disproves evolution, when really it just makes their ignorance of the entire subject shine like the sun.

Exactly. There isn't a single anti-evolution argument which is NOT guilty of attacking a strawman- all creationist arguments rely on blatant distortions or ignorant misconceptions of evolutionary theory, which they proceed to shadow-box.

The cool part about evolutionary theory is, the more you learn, the more you tend to accept it; it just enjoys such a preponderance of supporting evidence that one cannot really be familiar with the matter AND reject evolution.
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Of course they were needed. You don't need to run faster than the tiger, you only need to run faster than the slowest human. That way, the tiger eats the slow people and the fast people reproduce more. Over time, we get quicker and quicker.

That is another good example but I am not talking speed. I am talking reaction time. Mind not muscle.
 
Top