What is evolution, not what some think

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: chr0naut

Both Evolution and Creationism have become belief systems to the extent that disagreement with one makes people respond that you must be the other. This polarizes debate and distracts from analysis of subtle loopholes and issues, and prevents the proposal of any alternate theories.

That is NOT science.

Wrong. There is no "debate" re evolution and creationism. The only people whoever bring creationism into the conversation are creationists. The science of evolution has been settled for over a hundred years. You're creating a false dichotomy: there is no dichotomy here, only in the minds of the ignorant and deluded.

See, you just did it! You reduced it to an "either/or" argument.

Here's what I think, neither classical Evolution nor Creationism are science. Science has moved on based upon modern genetics and deeper observation.

Have you heard of the Hologenome? It is an eight-year old theory that attempts to patch some observed holes in Evolutionary theory.

Have you heard of viral DNA Transfer? You know the observed "junk DNA" we all carry from leftover viral infections. Imagine what transplantation of fully adapted and complete genetic sequences would do to add genetic attributes to an organism. Evolution doesn't include this mechanism at all, despite the fact that we have known it exists for some years.

You'll probably resort to calling me a Creationist now, though. Oh well...

originally posted by: tsingtao

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: tsingtao

originally posted by: Demoncreeper
So the OP does not believe in abiogenesis, therefore does not believe in evolution? I also read the op believes the "that something could not have come from nothing" theory.

But believes that God created everything from nothing, in 6 days instead?
Creating all life from nothing in one sitting?

Seems legit.

Where did God come from?

Milwaukee.

God could have easily created everything in 6 of His days.

Unfortunately there is no proof that god even exists.

absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Does a red, Ferrari exist in front of my house?

There is certainly an absence of evidence, because I don't see it, there are no photos and no other evidence that it's here.
Therefore it's pretty much evidence of absence of a red Ferrari in front of my house.

Better even, I would be able to document the evidence of absence, by showing images of my house where there is no red Ferrari anywhere to see.

originally posted by: NoRulesAllowed

originally posted by: tsingtao

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: tsingtao

originally posted by: Demoncreeper
So the OP does not believe in abiogenesis, therefore does not believe in evolution? I also read the op believes the "that something could not have come from nothing" theory.

But believes that God created everything from nothing, in 6 days instead?
Creating all life from nothing in one sitting?

Seems legit.

Where did God come from?

Milwaukee.

God could have easily created everything in 6 of His days.

Unfortunately there is no proof that god even exists.

absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Does a red, Ferrari exist in front of my house?

There is certainly an absence of evidence, because I don't see it, there are no photos and no other evidence that it's here.
Therefore it's pretty much evidence of absence of a red Ferrari in front of my house.

Better even, I would be able to document the evidence of absence, by showing images of my house where there is no red Ferrari anywhere to see.

Since we are being reductionist, what about a deep infra-red Ferrari (the faster you go, the redder it becomes ). Or one housed inside an enclosed truck. It could be there, even though you can't see it.

Since we know that invisible things exist, it returns us to our starting point that "absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence".

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: tsingtao
1) yeah, they can't fly. penguin wings adapted to water, if they ever flew. the others stayed on the ground. either lost the use of wings or never were in the air. not really evolution, tho.

So what you are saying is that when I provide examples of a species with wings that aren't fully evolved to fly, you cop out and tell me that its ok because they are used for other things? THAT was the whole point. When an animal starts evolving wings, they ARE used for things other than flying. It isn't until millions MORE years of evolution do they finally obtain the ability to fly.

2) this is what i have a hard time swallowing. something must have the design already in the dna.
science can give names out to anything, a bird will always be a bird. no matter what it looks like.
it won't change into something else. a lizard won't grow wings. humans won't grow wings.
too bad we can't read dna or even have an unbroken line of dna from 500mil yrs ago.

Why couldn't a lizard grow wings? Why couldn't a human grow wings? If it was beneficial to survival, they totally could evolve that capability. Of course they wouldn't grow wings overnight, it would be over a considerably long time. I'm not sure why you are denying that this could happen. We have evidence of many different examples of wing evolution among MANY different types of animals (reptile, mammal, avian, aquatic, insect). You don't think that only birds have wings do you?

3) you see, that is adapting, not evolution in the classical use.
obama evolved his thinking on gay marriage. which means he just changed his mind.

What does this have to do with Obama changing his mind? Why can't you see that after a species has adapted enough times over enough generations, eventually it would look nothing like what it originally started out as? It would look like and we would call it a totally new species.

1) how do you know which way the wings are going? i don't think an ostrich or emu will get off the ground at that size.
why would penguins leave the water?
unfortunately we will never be able to confirm that any of them will be airborn.

2) i think one needs the genes to grow wings but i should of used evolve into a bird, instead of saying grow wings. my fault.

3) i guess people get confused on the definition of "evolve."
i really can't comment on the second part.

================================================================================================


Does a red, Ferrari exist in front of my house?

There is certainly an absence of evidence, because I don't see it, there are no photos and no other evidence that it's here.
Therefore it's pretty much evidence of absence of a red Ferrari in front of my house.

Better even, I would be able to document the evidence of absence, by showing images of my house where there is no red Ferrari anywhere to see.
====================================================================================================================
that's so weird, i was going to write an analogy of a pinto and a ferrari in another post.

that would be true of your house but we are not talking about a car.

originally posted by: chr0naut


See, you just did it! You reduced it to an "either/or" argument.

No, creationism is not an "or".

Here's what I think, neither classical Evolution nor Creationism are science.

Then you fit into the "ignorant" or "deluded" category if you honestly think that evolution is unscientific.

originally posted by: tsingtao

originally posted by: Demoncreeper
So the OP does not believe in abiogenesis, therefore does not believe in evolution? I also read the op believes the "that something could not have come from nothing" theory.

But believes that God created everything from nothing, in 6 days instead?
Creating all life from nothing in one sitting?

Seems legit.

Where did God come from?

Milwaukee.

God could have easily created everything in 6 of His days.

Legit.

lol.

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

What you are doing is called a gish gallop and isn't conducive to traditional debate tactics. If you want to debate each of these topics, it behooves you to create individual topics on each DIFFERENT theory/hypothesis. Otherwise, you get the mess that is this thread. By lumping all of the theories/hypotheses together and declaring "debate me" you put all your opponents at a disadvantage.

Again no,
This isnt a debate, its an explanation as to why I dont accept evolution in any of its forms (micro ev aside).

Then this thread was unnecessary. Why even create it if you don't want to entertain opinions different from your own? I just explained to you how your misconceptions were wrong. I even acquiesced to your request for information on abiogenesis and the big bang which you completely ignored and didn't address.

Simple
This so called mess is simply a chain of links that doesnt make sense to me, you say its not reasoned though I tried to explain my reasoning, if you dont get it, there is nothing I can say
Its an explanation as to why I dont accept evolution

When you say that final sentence, it doesn't make sense with the rest of the words. Evolution is real. Things change over time. You admitted it when you said that you accept micro evolution as real. Also if you understand that all these things are separate from the Theory of Evolution, why do you keep labeling them under this blanket term of evolution? Why won't you admit that these are separate ideas that each need their own separate veins of discussion?

originally posted by: tsingtao
1) how do you know which way the wings are going? i don't think an ostrich or emu will get off the ground at that size.

Well with evolution, depending on how the animal adapts the wings, it could be going in one direction then change directions if the animal's environment changes and it has to adapt the wings for something else. Then it can change direction again if later on things change more. So it is tough to say. You are right, those animals are too large to fly, currently. Though if through adaptation (you already admitted that an animal shrinking in size qualifies as a adaptation) the birds shrink, their wings grow a bit more, and their bones hollow out appropriately, these animals could fly. If an emu shrank, grew larger wings, and became able to fly, would you still be able to call it an emu?

why would penguins leave the water?

To lay eggs and raise their children... Was this a real question?

unfortunately we will never be able to confirm that any of them will be airborn.

No, but we can study older fossils of animals that show a transition from leg to wing or from fin to wing. So it reasons that these examples of flightless birds could gain the ability to fly since we have evidence of it happening in the past.

2) i think one needs the genes to grow wings but i should of used evolve into a bird, instead of saying grow wings. my fault.

Of course you need the genes to grow wings, but your breakdown assumes the animal has this gene dormant or something. That is untrue. The gene just mutates and then propagates through the species as new generations are born.

3) i guess people get confused on the definition of "evolve."
i really can't comment on the second part.

No one gets confused on the definition of evolve, just creationists not properly learning the term and trying to attribute the wrong characteristics to it to incite controversy. Without creationists making crap up and everyone properly studying the theory before they commented on it, evolution would be pretty straight forward.

originally posted by: chr0naut
Have you heard of viral DNA Transfer? You know the observed "junk DNA" we all carry from leftover viral infections. Imagine what transplantation of fully adapted and complete genetic sequences would do to add genetic attributes to an organism. Evolution doesn't include this mechanism at all, despite the fact that we have known it exists for some years.

You'll probably resort to calling me a Creationist now, though. Oh well...

Not all "junk DNA" originates from integrated viral genomes. Also, what do you mean by evolution not including this mechanism at all? Horizontal gene transfer is well understood and accounted for, especially concerning the early evolution of life..

a reply to: chr0naut

There is no "either or" in this situation.

There is evolution, which is backed by a HUGE amount of physical evidence.

There is no other theory that has evidence behind it that can explain the diversity of life. Not even one.

Faith is a personal belief. Evolution and faith have absolutely nothing to do with one another and shouldn't be used to prove the other side right or wrong. They are not mutually exclusive. With that said, however, evolution denial in 2014 BECAUSE of faith is pretty ludicrous. Might as well go back to protesting that the earth is the center of the universe and the universe revolves around us. The science is solid. People just constantly regurgitate arguments from creationist websites and think that they are actually poking holes in the theory, but in reality it shows they don't even understand what they are attacking.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Then this thread was unnecessary. Why even create it if you don't want to entertain opinions different from your own? I just explained to you how your misconceptions were wrong. I even acquiesced to your request for information on abiogenesis and the big bang which you completely ignored and didn't address.



When you say that final sentence, it doesn't make sense with the rest of the words. Evolution is real. Things change over time. You admitted it when you said that you accept micro evolution as real. Also if you understand that all these things are separate from the Theory of Evolution, why do you keep labeling them under this blanket term of evolution? Why won't you admit that these are separate ideas that each need their own separate veins of discussion?

You may indeed think the thread is not needed, and you are welcome to believe that.

I am just a little annoyed that to be accepted I have to have your scientific heard mentality. In general.

I know that there is no point trying to sway you of your belief. My post was to outline my position, explain my view. Many defensive, some abusive and blatantly arrogant people showed up and ranted.
I dont get that
I dont get it from evolutionists and I sure as hell dont get it from Christians


I dont get it, I dont see why you have to win, why you must win.

Why cant the average evolutionist (or Christian) accept others views, why the hate

I dont accept evolution

originally posted by: borntowatch
You may indeed think the thread is not needed, and you are welcome to believe that.

It's not that the thread isn't needed. It's that it is overkill. You are just shotgun blasting a bunch of different topics into one topic and demanding that we debate them. Do you think it would be fair for an atheist to make a thread calling into question Islam, Judaism, Christianity, and any other religions he could think of and demand that the religious debate each one of those religions? No it's silly.

I am just a little annoyed that to be accepted I have to have your scientific heard mentality. In general.

I never said that. I SAID that you are putting way to many topics into one thread.

I know that there is no point trying to sway you of your belief. My post was to outline my position, explain my view. Many defensive, some abusive and blatantly arrogant people showed up and ranted.
I dont get that
I dont get it from evolutionists and I sure as hell dont get it from Christians

Because you aren't being open to new ideas. You put out your views, we tell you that you are wrong and provide evidence. You ignore us and pretend like we are attacking you.

I dont get it, I dont see why you have to win, why you must win.

It's not about winning. It's about being correct. You posted information that is wrong. I don't care what your views are. I care that you are willing to update your views when new information comes to light. This is called denying ignorance. You know, the website we are on's motto? You aren't doing that and are now whining because people like us are calling you out on it.

Why cant the average evolutionist (or Christian) accept others views, why the hate

This is a stupid question to ask of evolutionists. We rely on evidence. Give us the evidence that you are correct and we will believe. It isn't a matter of not being able to accept other viewpoints. It is a matter of evidence. It has ALWAYS been a matter of evidence.

I dont accept evolution

I already know this.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: borntowatch
You may indeed think the thread is not needed, and you are welcome to believe that.

It's not that the thread isn't needed. It's that it is overkill. You are just shotgun blasting a bunch of different topics into one topic and demanding that we debate them. Do you think it would be fair for an atheist to make a thread calling into question Islam, Judaism, Christianity, and any other religions he could think of and demand that the religious debate each one of those religions? No it's silly.

I never said that. I SAID that you are putting way to many topics into one thread.


Because you aren't being open to new ideas. You put out your views, we tell you that you are wrong and provide evidence. You ignore us and pretend like we are attacking you.


It's not about winning. It's about being correct. You posted information that is wrong. I don't care what your views are. I care that you are willing to update your views when new information comes to light. This is called denying ignorance. You know, the website we are on's motto? You aren't doing that and are now whining because people like us are calling you out on it.

This is a stupid question to ask of evolutionists. We rely on evidence. Give us the evidence that you are correct and we will believe. It isn't a matter of not being able to accept other viewpoints. It is a matter of evidence. It has ALWAYS been a matter of evidence.

I already know this.

I can explain my position and you can deny it, as you have done.
I can add as many points to this thread as I like, thats my opinion, you dont get to choose how I think, you are not a god. Where are the answers

You say its about being correct, its about you making me correct as to your beliefs. I disagree with you, its my choice. Where are the answers

In your words I see you whining that I wont do what you want me to do, get over it.
I outlined my position but it doesnt meet your standard, who made you the benchmark, the boss, the person I have to please.
Evolution is not a science, its a lie. I have seen no evidence.....ever. Where are the answers

I think you accept ignorance by believing evolution.

Where did the DNA code come from? I have to many questions to accept your beliefs

I want answers to my questions not a brow beating, thats all you have

originally posted by: borntowatch
I can explain my position and you can deny it, as you have done.
I can add as many points to this thread as I like, thats my opinion, you dont get to choose how I think, you are not a god. Where are the answers

True, but that doesn't prevent your thread from being one of these:

Gish Gallop

The Gish Gallop is the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of small arguments that their opponent cannot possibly answer or address each one in real time. More often than not, these myriad arguments are full of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments - the only condition is that there be many of them, not that they be particularly compelling on their own. They may be escape hatches or "gotcha" arguments that are specifically designed to be brief, but take a long time to unravel. Thus, galloping is frequently used in timed debates (especially by creationists) to overwhelm one's opponent.

Examples are most commonly found in "list" articles that may claim to show "100 reasons for" something, or "50 reasons against" something. At this sort of level, with dozens upon dozens of minor arguments, each individual point on the list may only be a single sentence or two, and many may be a repeat or vague re-wording of a previous one. This is the intention: although it is trivial amount of effort on the part of the galloper to make a point, particularly if they just need to re-iterate an existing one a different way, a refutation may take much longer and someone addressing will be unable to refute all points in a similarly short order. If even one argument in a Gish Gallop is left standing at the end, or addressed insufficiently, the galloper will attempt to claim victory.

You say its about being correct, its about you making me correct as to your beliefs. I disagree with you, its my choice. Where are the answers

My beliefs are irrelevant when you won't even look at the information I provide. So I posted information on the big bang and the abiogenesis hypothesis several posts ago. Not only did you not respond to it, you flat out pretended like it didn't exist and now you are asking me for answers again. What's up with that?

In your words I see you whining that I wont do what you want me to do, get over it.

Well excuse me for expecting a two way street when engaging someone in debate.

I outlined my position but it doesnt meet your standard, who made you the benchmark, the boss, the person I have to please.
Evolution is not a science, its a lie. I have seen no evidence.....ever. Where are the answers

It isn't about my standards. It's about recognizing definitions and understanding the things that you are debating before doing so. You have made no attempt to do this. Also I thought we were talking about the big bang and abiogenesis? Why bring up evolution again?

I think you accept ignorance by believing evolution.

That has got to be the most laughable thing I've ever read on these forums and I've seen some pretty dumb things said. But hey, evolution aside, at least I am willing to understand my opponents' arguments before I attempt to debate them and if I make an error, I'm willing to admit my mistake.You on the other hand don't even read other people's sources and then demand answers continually. I've counted four separate instances of you demanding answers in this post I'm responding to. Yet you ignored me when I provided information about abiogenesis and the big bang. How about you start with that information, show how it is incorrect in your follow up post, then we can move on to other answers or proceed with the debate? Until then, you are swimming in ignorance with a healthy dash of trolling.

Where did the DNA code come from? I have to many questions to accept your beliefs

I know I should be withholding this from you until you address the other information I provided earlier, but I'll give it a go anyways.

How did life originate?

I want answers to my questions not a brow beating, thats all you have

That and mountains of evidence. What have you got going for your side? A book written several thousand years ago?

Though I also have to ask, what questions? Your op is a list of various theories and hypotheses but no proper refutations on any of them. Just that you don't believe them.

originally posted by: borntowatch

I dont accept evolution

And yet it's still scientifically accepted, scientifically testable and above all widely recognised as the most plausible explanation for the changes that have been recorded in the fossil record of nature. Creationism is not regarded as coming anywhere close to it.

originally posted by: rhinoceros

originally posted by: chr0naut
Have you heard of viral DNA Transfer? You know the observed "junk DNA" we all carry from leftover viral infections. Imagine what transplantation of fully adapted and complete genetic sequences would do to add genetic attributes to an organism. Evolution doesn't include this mechanism at all, despite the fact that we have known it exists for some years.

You'll probably resort to calling me a Creationist now, though. Oh well...

Not all "junk DNA" originates from integrated viral genomes. Also, what do you mean by evolution not including this mechanism at all? Horizontal gene transfer is well understood and accounted for, especially concerning the early evolution of life..

Considering its prevalence, as testified in our own genes, why is this not considered as equal 'weight' with natural selection and mutation?

... and why is it "especially concerning the early evolution of life"? Surely the DNA chemistry behind early life is exactly the same today?

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: chr0naut

There is no "either or" in this situation.

There is evolution, which is backed by a HUGE amount of physical evidence.

There is no other theory that has evidence behind it that can explain the diversity of life. Not even one.

Faith is a personal belief. Evolution and faith have absolutely nothing to do with one another and shouldn't be used to prove the other side right or wrong. They are not mutually exclusive. With that said, however, evolution denial in 2014 BECAUSE of faith is pretty ludicrous. Might as well go back to protesting that the earth is the center of the universe and the universe revolves around us. The science is solid. People just constantly regurgitate arguments from creationist websites and think that they are actually poking holes in the theory, but in reality it shows they don't even understand what they are attacking.

There is more than one theory of Evolution.

To discard alternate theories and cling to one only as "the absolute truth" is religion, not science.

The classical theory of evolutionary biology, based only upon the trio of mechanisms: mutation, natural selection and genetic drift, has been left behind by recent science and genetics. It was a starting point but it doesn't explain everything.

Unfortunately, newer theories usually describe incredibly complex interactions and under their regime we can no longer notate simple 'paths' of evolutionary change. In them, massive radical change can happen very fast and in unexpected ways. We actually see this in nature and biologists call this punctuated equilibrium. Classical Evolution explains a gradualism of change but not punctuated equilibrium.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t


True, but that doesn't prevent your thread from being one of these:

Gish Gallop



My beliefs are irrelevant when you won't even look at the information I provide. So I posted information on the big bang and the abiogenesis hypothesis several posts ago. Not only did you not respond to it, you flat out pretended like it didn't exist and now you are asking me for answers again. What's up with that?

In your words I see you whining that I wont do what you want me to do, get over it.

Well excuse me for expecting a two way street when engaging someone in debate.

It isn't about my standards. It's about recognizing definitions and understanding the things that you are debating before doing so. You have made no attempt to do this. Also I thought we were talking about the big bang and abiogenesis? Why bring up evolution again?

I think you accept ignorance by believing evolution.

That has got to be the most laughable thing I've ever read on these forums and I've seen some pretty dumb things said. But hey, evolution aside, at least I am willing to understand my opponents' arguments before I attempt to debate them and if I make an error, I'm willing to admit my mistake.You on the other hand don't even read other people's sources and then demand answers continually. I've counted four separate instances of you demanding answers in this post I'm responding to. Yet you ignored me when I provided information about abiogenesis and the big bang. How about you start with that information, show how it is incorrect in your follow up post, then we can move on to other answers or proceed with the debate? Until then, you are swimming in ignorance with a healthy dash of trolling.

Where did the DNA code come from? I have to many questions to accept your beliefs

I know I should be withholding this from you until you address the other information I provided earlier, but I'll give it a go anyways.

How did life originate?

That and mountains of evidence. What have you got going for your side? A book written several thousand years ago?

Though I also have to ask, what questions? Your op is a list of various theories and hypotheses but no proper refutations on any of them. Just that you don't believe them.

Gish Gallop, come on, you just want to win an argument.
I havnt debated anyone, only outlined my position and given a reason.
See the problem, you want a debate, you want a fight.

I wont accept answers from you, because you are here to push your agenda

You have admitted previously science doesnt have all the answers, is that correct?
If thats true then I cant accept evolution

The mountain of evidence you claim has more holes in it than a flywire screen, but you want me to accept it because you do.

Ok so I will ask a question, what caused the big bang, or what caused existence from nothing
I think there are three options
The Big Bang
"The theory maintains that, in the instant—a trillion-trillionth of a second—after the big bang, the universe expanded with incomprehensible speed from its pebble-size origin to astronomical scope. Expansion has apparently continued, but much more slowly, over the ensuing billions of years.'http://science.nationalgeographic.com.au/science/space/universe/origins-universe-article/

The Steady Sate theory: we can get to that if we have to

The Pulsating Theory: we can get to that if we have to

Now if you can answer that, and I dont want a debate, Id be interested.
Just make it definitive or admit there is no real scientific answer.
Also dont link half a dozen pages of text, I have read heaps of them and they dont answer the question, bit like you I fear


Dont waste your time, there are three theories because there is no solid answer, its all guess work, hence the three theories.
Thats a refutation

Yeah I know, its not biological evolution, so its not fair on you. The problem is its important to me.


and what has my side going for me, you, sciences inability to agree

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
above all widely recognised as the most plausible explanation for the changes that have been recorded

When I read that statement all I hear is "widely recognised as plausible"
See that is nothing more than fluff to me.
"Its the best we have so it is what we accept"
I am sorry, that isnt good enough to end my faith in creation, in God.

I accept if you dont believe in God then it is acceptable as a theory