Is the Theory of Evolution on the ropes?

[Carfax83]

1) Yes. There have been lab experiments that show mutation, among other factors, to be responsible for speciation.

Link?

2) Obviously there is information in DNA. I'm not sure why that needs answering by Dawkins or anyone. It isn't a question. There is little mystery as to it got there.

Really, then if you are so smart, tell us how information got into DNA.. Because I'm sure you're the only person that knows..

3) Evolution is very well supported by evidence. Probably the only theory that beats it in terms of evidence is the theory of gravity. It's everywhere in every living thing and in every fossil of past living things. In each passing generation evolution is a measurable, if minute, occurrence.

Again, no one, least of all not me is saying that evolution, as defined by the adaptation of living creatures over time to environmental stress and changes is not factual and well supported by evidence.

What I'm saying, is that the mechanism for evolution (ie random mutation) cannot possibly be responsible for the incredible diversity of life that exists on planet Earth right now, and that random mutation has never been demonstrated or observed to show that it could create new species.

 

[Alone]

So, since you are a great believer in logic and facts, what are your opinions on the origins of Life?

I expect a logical and factual response by the way..

Also, I want a factual and logical answer to how Life came to be as it is right now.

I don't have an argument that meets your criteria. The reason for this is because I know that I'm not well enough versed scientifically, and to give such an opinion would be arrogant, and more than likely, plain wrong.

The difference between you and I is that I can admit this, and side with fact and logic. You, on the other hand, seem ready to argue to the death, but instead of admitting you don't understand something, you simply attribute it to some sort of superbeing.

 

[DrPizza]

Wait a second. You've claimed that you're not a creationist - you're an intelligent design proponent. If you're in favor of an intelligent designer guiding evolution - you can't argue against evolution. That is, unless your ultimate motive is... Creationism. You're not a very good bullshit artist. You've basically said that evolution can't produce new species. That implies that all species were... created.

 

[busydude]

What I'm saying, is that the mechanism for evolution (ie random mutation) cannot possibly be responsible for the incredible diversity of life that exists on planet Earth right now, and that random mutation has never been demonstrated or observed to show that it could create new species.

We don't live long enough. Also.. can you provide any explanation on how Intelligent Design justifies extinction of species?

 

[Alone]

What I'm saying, is that the mechanism for evolution (ie random mutation) cannot possibly be responsible for the incredible diversity of life that exists on planet Earth right now

Ok, I'll play it your way.

Why not?

 

[Carfax83]

It is clear you haven't yet defined intelligent design in any of your posts. Time to start putting thoughtful words together or be dismissed as a troll.

Here is the text book definition of Intelligent design:

Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection

Intelligent Design implies that intelligence was and is a driving force in the evolution of Life, but it doesn't specify the origin or even the nature of the intelligence.

So basically, believing in intelligent design, does not mean you don't believe in evolution.... I even said in my OP, that I am a believer in evolution..

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

So basically, the entire OP is one big thinly disguised argument from ignorance and god of the gaps. Not a good start.

Really, then if you are so smart, tell us how information got into DNA.. Because I'm sure you're the only person that knows..

This is a non-issue. Everything contains information.

 

[darkswordsman17]

OK this is fine, but you are rebutting me, and not my assertions..

Answer me these questions please, since you are so obviously much more informed than me.

Has any Scientist ever demonstrated in a lab that random mutations can create new information in a genome?

Has any Scientist ever successfully created a new species via random mutations in a laboratory environment?

Has any Scientist ever developed credible, testable theories concerning how information became originally became associated with DNA?

You rebutted your own assertions.

Really you didn't even make many assertions beyond the fact that you are stupid and you don't understand (which you've pretty well proven). I'm not really sure what to make a rebuttal to? You mean the assertions that you copied and pasted and basically just said you don't understand them but somehow that makes them stupid?

I'm not going to do a copy-paste war, so just assume you can find all the rebuttals and the information you claim to seek in the link I provided.

 

[Blackjack200]

So, since you are a great believer in logic and facts, what are your opinions on the origins of Life?

I expect a logical and factual response by the way..

Also, I want a factual and logical answer to how Life came to be as it is right now.



It's clear you don't understand what intelligent design is, if you are asking me that if we were created by an intelligent being, why are we still evolving :|

One of the greatest physicists of all time explains why it's impossible for you to know the answers to the questions above.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-DwULM

Now it's up to you. You can go out and get your self to a point, through conventional education, where you can understand the answers to those questions, or you can continue to believe in an invisible man in the sky who is responsible for everything you don't understand.

 

[Brigandier]

The origin of life: A pool of acids, nitrogen, radiation and eons. And by eons, I mean higher than you can count. Given a length of time, anything can happen, no matter how unlikely. Look at the people that play the lottery for their entire life and win at 50. The origin of life is time and unusual circumstance.

 

[Carfax83]

I don't have an argument that meets your criteria. The reason for this is because I know that I'm not well enough versed scientifically, and to give such an opinion would be arrogant, and more than likely, plain wrong.

As I knew you wouldn't, yet you were lambasting me for my own opinions nonetheless, even though you could not directly refute them.

The difference between you and I is that I can admit this, and side with fact and logic. You, on the other hand, seem ready to argue to the death, but instead of admitting you don't understand something, you simply attribute it to some sort of superbeing.

You are contradicting yourself greatly here. You claim you don't understand the subject well enough to debate it, yet you are still 100% convinced that what evolutionary biologists state is both factual and logical

 

[Iron Woode]

I gave up after irreducible complexity. That only means one thing: Intelligent Design believer.

:awe:

 

[Alone]

As I knew you wouldn't, yet you were lambasting me for my own opinions nonetheless, even though you could not directly refute them.



You are contradicting yourself greatly here. You claim you don't understand the subject well enough to debate it, yet you are still 100% convinced that what evolutionary biologists state is both factual and logical

You're welcome to interpret what I say however you'd like, but I was specifically stating that I didn't know enough about how life can to be, or however it is you asked it. I know enough to say that creationism is bullshit, and that's what I'm arguing.

You, however, contradict yourself at every turn. You claim not to be a creationist, but that you believe in ID. That's a contradiction. You say you believe in evolution as well as ID. That's a contradiction.

Make up your mind if you're going to try and argue a point.

 

[zinfamous]

dear everloving christ please make the pain go away and silence the voices in my head.

 

[Carfax83]

Ok, I'll play it your way.

Why not?

Because there is no evidence that it does. Scientists have performed countless experiments on fruit flies and bacteria, exposing them to all kinds of environmental stress over hundreds or thousands of generations, and yet, even though the organisms mutate, they do not mutate into another species entirely.

Mutations are far more likely to be neutral, harmful or fatal, than beneficial. In fact, cells have defenses and repair mechanisms against mutation!

Why would cells have such defenses against mutations if mutations were necessary for evolution?

Relying on random mutation as the engine that drives evolutionary changes is definitely a weak point in the theory of evolution.

 

[zinfamous]

Here is the text book definition of Intelligent design:



Intelligent Design implies that intelligence was and is a driving force in the evolution of Life, but it doesn't specify the origin or even the nature of the intelligence.

If Intelligent design can be found in a text book...then that is not a very good text book.

 

[sandorski]

First you state that Evolution is Fact, then you introduce the Theory Canard when discussing the Theory of Evolution. Stopped reading after that, because I know "theory" has been splained to you repeatedly in the past.

That said, some of the specifics within the current massive body of Evidence/Understanding of the Theory of evolution may in fact change. However, the Theory of Evolution merely explains Evolution, something you readily accept as Fact. In essence, you're only attacking the Theory of Evolution on purely Religious grounds. Either you accept Evolution or you don't, if that's a problem to your Religious beliefs, well, make a choice. Just don't expect others to buy into your self-contradictory argument.

 

[Brigandier]

Because there is no evidence that it does. Scientists have performed countless experiments on fruit flies and bacteria, exposing them to all kinds of environmental stress over hundreds or thousands of generations, and yet, even though the organisms mutate, they do not mutate into another species entirely.

Mutations are far more likely to be neutral, harmful or fatal, than beneficial. In fact, cells have defenses and repair mechanisms against mutation!

Why would cells have such defenses against mutations if mutations were necessary for evolution?

Relying on random mutation as the engine that drives evolutionary changes is definitely a weak point in the theory of evolution.

Mutations can be detrimental, the organism will die out and the mutation too. A mutation can be neutral, in that case the organism will live and reproduce, preserving the mutation. A mutation can be beneficial, giving the organism a leg up, and lead to change in the entire population through rampant reproduction, in which case the mutation is passed on almost exclusively. Two cases where mutations can continue and one where it dies, what are the odds mutation will continue onto another generation?

Think about single celled organisms, and simple multi-celled organisms, in a long period, will mutations benefit or destroy the population? Oh, and each generation can have new mutations, in the three categories you stated, project it out for a million years... Think, harder.

 

[DrPizza]

Question - of the thousands and thousands of things that science states, there are only TWO main points of contention between Biblical creationists and science - Big Bang, and evolution. Why did YOU state that there's no observable evidence for the Big Bang unless you had a religious motive. Your suggestion that the intelligent designer could be aliens or something else is nonsense. You know and we know that your basis is a literal interpretation of the Bible. So don't try to bullshit us - you're not fooling anyone.


Also, you've posed questions for us. When are you going to answer OUR questions?

If it's intelligent design, why are humans almost unique among animals for having one flawed gene that prevents us from biosynthesizing vitamin C?

p.s. you're not allowed to use "God works in mysterious ways - we can't know his reasons."

 

[Carfax83]

This is a non-issue. Everything contains information.

Where is the I LOL'd icon when you need it? :biggrin:

You are clearly ignorant of what information is if you believe that.. It would be more accurate for you to state that information can be gleaned from everything, rather than what you stated.

The information in DNA can be understood and interpreted, because it has meaning. It can even be copied to another medium other than DNA..

But you're telling me now that rocks and socks contain information? :awe:

 

[Alone]

Because there is no evidence that it does. Scientists have performed countless experiments on fruit flies and bacteria, exposing them to all kinds of environmental stress over hundreds or thousands of generations, and yet, even though the organisms mutate, they do not mutate into another species entirely.

Mutations are far more likely to be neutral, harmful or fatal, than beneficial. In fact, cells have defenses and repair mechanisms against mutation!

Why would cells have such defenses against mutations if mutations were necessary for evolution?

Relying on random mutation as the engine that drives evolutionary changes is definitely a weak point in the theory of evolution.

Mutation occurs over time and for specific reasons. We don't fully understand it, yet, but science is at least making progress in attempting to figure it out. Creationists just piss on everything and say "nuh uh!"

 

[Red Squirrel]

Evolution and the Earth being flat are very common. Both have been "proven" and stated as "fact" .... based on the knowledge of the time. When the Earth being flat was just accepted, the thought of going into space, or analyzing the stars and the moon and understanding what they are was unheard of. Eventually with more knowledge and technology they were able to disprove it.

Perhaps one day, evolution and/or the big bang (they tend to go together, but don't have to) will be fully proved... or disproved. Though it is a much more complex theory so I don't imagine any major breakthroughs any time soon.

I'm hungry for a banana. Guess since that craving is in me, we must come from monkeys. How many people don't like bananas, really? I think it's solid proof right there that we come from monkeys.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

As I knew you wouldn't, yet you were lambasting me for my own opinions nonetheless, even though you could not directly refute them.



You are contradicting yourself greatly here. You claim you don't understand the subject well enough to debate it, yet you are still 100% convinced that what evolutionary biologists state is both factual and logical

No shit. Go look up the argument from authority, and then go and look up why it's not always a logical fallacy.

 

[busydude]

But you're telling me now that rocks and socks contain information?

Umm.. yes.

 

[Brigandier]

Umm.. yes.

If they don't support biology, why would they support geology?