Difference between revisions of "Debate:Is the theory of macroevolution true?"

Revision as of 18:26, February 13, 2007

Post Your Thoughts

Yes

Arguments for * All life on Earth shares common ancestor

All life on Earth shares common ancestor

All life on Earth shares molecular features.
- Counter: This is not a scientific argument for evolution. First, this argument says nothing about a *process* of evolution. It does not reveal any transitional forms between species, for examples. In fact, lots of DNA evidence tends to disprove transitions from one species to another. Second, there is no objective or scientific way to say one thing is like another. If you insist there is, then you'd have to agree that intelligent design is science also. Note, by the way, that all of Shakespeare's plays "share" similar features, but one play did not evolve by itself into another.--Aschlafly 23:54, 21 December 2006 (EST)
1. Same macromolecules (DNA, RNA, protein)
2. Same monomers for those macromolecules (five nucleotides, twenty standard amino acids)
3. Same chirality of molecules. DNA in all complex life forms is right-handed, research suggests[1] that left-handed DNA would work just as well.
  1. If life forms did not have common ancestors we would expect to see a fairly even distribution of left and right handed DNA.
4. Genetic system:
  - Ribosome structure
  - tRNA structure
  - The universal genetic code (and slight deviations from it)
  - Information encoded in nucleotide polymers (DNA or RNA).
Differences between organisms can be explained by known mechanisms of genetic mutation.
- Counter: There has not been enough time for mutation to generate existing biological diversity.
  - Counter: There has been enough time enough time to generate existing biological diversity.
    - Counter: The time argument doesn't help. Decay, scattering, extinction, defects, disasters, etc., all INCREASE over time. Besides, all mutations are harmful.--Aschlafly 23:54, 21 December 2006 (EST)

NATURAL genetic changes can only account for diversity within a species. Mendellian genetics has demonstrated the existence of a closed field of genetic changes which can occur through the reproductive process.

- 1. The speed of evolution is measured by the darwin (change in an organism's character by a factor of e per million years.) [2]
  2. Evolution in the lab can be as high as 200,000 darwins.
  3. As measured by the fossil record, the average evolutionary rate in the wild is 370 darwins.
  4. A rate of 400 darwins is capable of turning a mouse into an elephant in just 10,000 years.
- No other (non-human) process has been observed to generate biological diversity.
- Extensive biological diversity existed before humans had the ability to create new forms by molecular recombination.

- Counter: Despite a century of teaching evolution in American schools, the majority of Americans still reject it. The burden of proof is on the evolutionists, and the proof just isn't there. Darwinists would be better off looking for another theory to try to replace Christianity.--Aschlafly 23:54, 21 December 2006 (EST)

>95% of academic biologists support it.

Those who argue against it have a poor understanding of biology.

Comment on logic: I am sorry, but your answer is an appeal to authority, a common logical mistake. But its ok. I am sure there is still more evidence to support your point? David R

Reply: You say that "95% of academic biologists support it." What evidence do you have to support this statement? I have often wondered if there was a place were one could view this sort of information. It would be most helpful.

You go on to say that "Those who argue against it have a poor understanding of biology." Again, what evidence do you have to support this statement? Here are some creation biologists, to name a few:

Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry

All of them have doctoral degrees in some sort of biology and all argue against macro-evolution and for creationism. Are you claiming that all of them have a poor understanding of biology? PhilipB 23:29, 17 December 2006 (EST)

Another Reply: I assume that you have a better understanding of biology upon which to base this attack? Please enlighten us; how would a wise biologist refute the facts that seemingly disprove evolution? Where is the host of intermediate links? When have biologists observed an organism acctually gain genetic information through a mutation rather than lose it? BenjaminS

Having studied and worked with scientists for a decade, and spending another decade debating armchair evolutionists, I've found that it is usually someone unsuccessful in the hard sciences (physical, chemistry, biology and you might add mathematics) who is drawn most to evolution. The late evolution-promoter Stephen Jay Gould, for example, was merely a geology major at Antioch College. Big evolution promoter Richard Dawkins was an assistant professor at Berkeley, and then a lecturer, and then it's not clear to me what his academic status was for a while. Meanwhile, real experts, such as Richard Sternberg who has TWO PhDs in evolution fields, have been critical of the theory. But Sternberg was harshly disciplined for daring to question the theory, and few are anxious to risk similar retaliation.

>It is at least a puzzle to understand how Creationism accounts for seemingly-badly-designed aspects of anatomy and physiology. For example, the eyes of cephalopods (squid, octopus) and those of vertebrates (mammals, including humans) are strikingly similar in their general "design" with one conspicuous exception. In the cephalopod eye, the retina is structured exactly as one would expect: the light-sensitive receptors face forward, toward the lens, and the nerve fibers that join to form the optic nerve exit in the back.

In the human eye, however, the retina is structured in a very surprising way that is exactly the reverse. The receptors face backwards, and not only the nerve fibers that collect to form the optic nerve but also all of the blood vessels that nourish it are in front, where they block the view and cast shadows on the retina. The result is that the human eye has a large and seemingly unnecessary blind spot, and that very intricate processing by the brain is necessary to hide the image of the shadows of the blood vessels.

It all works, of course, but it is puzzling as to why an intelligent creator would design it this way, particularly given that the much older cephalopod eye does it the "right" way. No doubt it is possible to explain this (just as it is possible to explain fossils by saying that God created the fossils along with everything else in 4004 BC).

It seems much easier to explain this as a series of incremental adaptations rather than as being "designed" the way a human engineer would design a camera. Of course that does not mean that the incremental adaptations were necessarily guided by pure natural selection as envisioned by Darwin, either. Dpbsmith 14:01, 18 December 2006 (EST)

Reply: I don't know where you got the thing about creationists believing that God created the fossils in 4004 B.C., but I believe that the vast majority of fossils are the product of Noah's flood as it is described in Genesis. ChrisS

Reply: I believe that almost everything you say here provides evidence for creation. Let me explain... in you first paragraph you state that mammals "are strikingly similar in their general 'design'". This is true but does this support macro-evolution? I think not. Wouldn't macro-evolution produce many different types of "eyes" that would work? Why are they all so similar?

You go on to say that in the human the eye is just different from all these other eyes. You say this provides evidence against creation because, if it were true, why is it not the same as the others. Well, doesn't this also support creationism? Why would just one be different? Because our creator was original, he was an artist, not a robot. As for the "very intricate processing by the brain [that] is necessary to hide the image of the shadows of the blood vessels." This is more evidence for creation. Why would natural selection create a process like this? It seems pointless to us, but those "intricate" processes were intricately designed. Maybe our creator was trying to show that he existed... He created this one eye that wouldn't work; if it not for these amazing brain processes. PhilipB 15:11, 18 December 2006 (EST)

It's certainly a point of view... but didn't you feel that you needed to work just a bit to arrive at it?

Although it's certainly possible, I don't believe that God involves himself in the design details of vertebrate anatomy, and I certainly don't believe he goes to the effort of putting in deliberate design errors as a trick to test peoples' faith. I think a lot more likely that God created the general conditions under which evolution by natural selection takes place, and the "wrong" anatomy of the vertebrate retina is the result of the constraints of having evolved in gradual steps. Dpbsmith 11:48, 19 December 2006 (EST)

Reply: There is nothing to indicate that the human eye is an "error"; it works wonderfully. Also under the belief that God is omnipotent, I have no trouble as you do in believing that God would design the details of vertebrate anatomy, especially in light of the arguments against evolution below (with the possible exception of argument #7). Why would he let life progress at random when he could create every thing "fearfully and wonderfully" to reflect his awesome greatness?

BenjaminS

No

If you have questions about Evolution/Creationism see the articles on this website [[3]]

I would just like to say that the "theory" of Evolution does not even qualify as a theory!! According to the scientific method, after you make a hypothesis, if ANY data comes up that contradicts you hypothesis than it must either be revised or discarded! How come even though there is much evidence that contradicts evolution it is still considered a theory? ChrisS

No

1. No credible transitional forms (fossils reflecting evolution between species) have ever been found.

Counter: Some transitional forms

Counter:

All of these examples given in the above about the evolution of the whale are nonsense:

Pakicetus -- What makes this a "link"? It was nothing but a land mammal gone extinct.

Ambulocetus -- The reason given that this is a link is complete nonsense. It resembles a whale??? Most trees resemble eachother, they all have a trunk, branches, leaves, etc. Does this mean that all trees are somehow missing links between each other?

Dorudon -- I guess Wikipedia supposes this is a missing link because it uses sonar??? Same as example above.

Basilosaurus -- Another extinct species called a link because it "resembles" a whale.

Eurhinodelphis -- No reason given that is may be a missing link.

Mammalodon colliveri -- The article just makes an unsupported statement. I would consider this article for deletion (no notability).

PhilipB 11:46, 3 January 2007 (EST)

2. There is no plausible explanation for the evolution of the whale, which is a mammal. Darwin suggested that the whale somehow came from black bears swimming with their mouths open!

3. Evolution cannot be reconciled with the evidence of a massive flood.

4. All mutations are harmful.

Counter This is a false argument. Firstly, it is estimated 1/3 of point mutations (mutations affecting one link in the DNA and no others) are not harmful. Secondly, though the number is small, there are documented cases of mutations being beneficial - an example is sickle cell anemia. This mutation is a flaw in the hemoglobin gene of humans, causing these molecules to covalently bond into long, bristly fibers inside the red blood cell that distort them into a sickle cell shape. This mutation makes sickle cell individuals immune to malaria, and many of the people residing in countries where this disease is prevalent have this mutation. The people affected by this mutation have lived and multiplied, thereby disproving this myth. Also see Counter argument to #5. PhyllisS

Reply: Phyllis, I don't know where you got your information on sickle cell anemia but it was certainly a biased source. You have not given the full story; 25% of those with sickle cell anemia die prematurely! This is not a good mutation. As the closest thing to a good mutation that evolutionists can come up with this is not supportive of evolution at all. --BenjaminS 23:40, 13 January 2007 (EST)

Further Reply: Overall the mutation sickle cell anemia is obviously harmful. The same is true for all mutations. Simple probability predicts this: a random mutation is far more likely to reach a less desirable form. The odds are overwhelming. It is the same reason that heat always flows to cooler places. If you think mutations can be beneficial, then do you also think heat can sometimes "by chance" flow to a hotter place? That if we added billions of years it must happen sometimes? Of course not. It never happens.--Aschlafly 23:01, 14 January 2007 (EST)

Further Reply: Heat flowing to cooler places is entirely irrelevant to our discussion. Please elaborate. --PhyllisS

Comment: You should try to bear with Mr. Schlafly's abstract analogies (I know that they rarely make sense) and respond to his points that are doing you any harm; e.g. "Overall the mutation sickle cell anemia is obviously harmful. The same is true for all mutations."

--BenjaminS 18:21, 17 January 2007 (EST)

This is not exactly a counter to Aschlafly. But... Darwin was writing in the days when breeders were starting to do amazing things with selective breeding, which was one of the things that impressed him. Selective breeding is still going on and it is still amazing. In 1910 the average domesticated chickens laid 80 eggs a year; by 1999 292 eggs a year. There are similar stories for milk production per cow, meat per chicken, etc. Some of the improvement is due to changes in feed, antibiotics, hormones, whatever, but most of it is from selective breeding. So the question I would ask is: if all mutations are harmful, then where do breeders find the slightly improved animals to select as the progenitors of the next generation? Dpbsmith 18:46, 22 January 2007 (EST)

The vast majority of mutations are neutral or have no observable phenotypic change. Furthermore, of those mutations which are not in those categories, for most mutations whether or not the mutation is beneficial is highly connected to the environment which the relevant organism is found (sickle-cell anemia provides a vivid demonstration of this). However, other examples which are more directly beneficial. For example, many bacteria have gained mutations for immunity to various antibiotics, while other bacteria have gained mutations that allow them to eat nylon (a purely synthetic material). A more prosaic example is lactose tolerance. JoshuaZ 22:43, 6 February 2007 (EST)

5. Species have being going extinct rather than being generated.

Counter This is not true. For example, through a specific type of sympatric speciation, new species of plants are able to form and have formed in abundance. It occurs from meiosis not occuring properly in the production of gametes. These "mutant" offspring are a new species and cannot produce offspring with the species they came from, yet can produce fertile offspring with other plants that were mutated the same way. --PhyllisS

Reply: This is true; the statement above is only a general rule. What can be said for sure is that though mutations occur, there has never been a documented example of a organism gaining genetic information.--BenjaminS 23:40, 13 January 2007 (EST)

Further reply: Right. The mutant offspring devolved, not evolved.--Aschlafly 23:01, 14 January 2007 (EST)

Further reply: The organism did not devolve. Please explain this reply further. --PhyllisS

Comment: I think that by "devolve" he is trying to point out that organisms only lose genetic information through mutation; evolution relies upon the gain genetic information.

--BenjaminS 18:21, 17 January 2007 (EST)

6. All unaided things become more disordered and scattered over time.

Counter Which is an argument against the existence of technology, cities, cars and everything advanced. This is a (rather embarrasing) misconception about the second law of thermodynamics. It states that entropy increases in a closed system. The earth is not a closed system, as processes here are powered by the energy originating from the sun. Order can increase in a system as long as more energy is inserted. A closed system is a system that doesn't receive such outside energy.

Comment on "closed system": So what you are saying that the order and energy of the Earth is dependent and derived from the Sun. Where does the Sun get its energy? What happens when it runs out of fuel, whether that be millions or even billions of years away? Molecules are still breaking down within the Sun. No matter how you look at it, the entire universe, "closed system" or not, is a slave of the second law of thermodynamics. David R

Further comment: That's right, David. By the way, the injection of energy into a system increases entropy. The only way to decrease entropy is intelligent ordering or intervention. Without that, entropy and disorder always increase. Whatever species existed 5000 years ago, in the absence of divine intervention there must be less ordered, less advanced, fewer species today. We see many examples of this: species go extinct each year, breeds of dogs degrade (e.g., Golden Retriever), even humans have increased incidence of asthma and other health problems from generation to generation. Take a look at how smart humans were just 100 or 200 years ago by looking at their writings, and compare that to the average human writings today. Entropy predicts degradation of everything over time in the absence of intelligent intervention.--Aschlafly 22:26, 14 January 2007 (EST)

7. There is vast beauty in the world which would not exist in a purely evolutionary world. "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows his handiwork" (Psalm 19:1)

Counter This is an irrelevant argument. What evidence exists to say that evolution cannot produce beauty? Besides that, what is the definition of beauty? Beauty can be a life form adapted to its environment, beauty can be a beneficial mutation, beauty can be monomers spontaneously forming polymers when dripped on hot clay...all examples of evolution. PhyllisS

This argument "against" evolution is terrible! Though evolution is false this isn't why. Unfortunately for evolutionists everywhere your counter argument does no better supporting evolution than the first one did disproving it.--BenjaminS 23:40, 13 January 2007 (EST)

Brilliant autumn foliage is beautiful. You won't find anyone who sincerely denies it, exact perhaps the most hardened evolutionist. But it is impossible for the beauty in brilliant autumn foliage to have evolved before humans even existed.

Evolutionists generally deny that there is intrinsic beauty in nature. Over 99% of Americans think there is beauty in nature. Take your pick. Count me as part of the over 99% majority.--Aschlafly 22:47, 14 January 2007 (EST)

I don't think "evolutionists generally deny that there is intrinsic beauty in nature." Where did you get that? (Not a rhetorical question, I'm curious to know. Do creationists go around saying such a thing?) Stephen Jay Gould wrote "Shall we appreciate any less the beauty of nature because its harmony is unplanned?" Darwin wrote

"The view seen when crossing the hills behind Praia Grande was most beautiful; the colours were intense, and the prevailing tint a dark blue; the sky and the calm waters of the bay vied with each other in splendour;" "The number of beautiful fishing birds, such as egrets and cranes, and the succulent plants assuming most fantastical forms, gave to the scene an interest which it would not otherwise have possessed." "The beautiful view of the distant wooded hills, reflected in the perfectly calm water of an extensive lagoon, quite refreshed us." etc. etc. etc.

Maybe you think that evolutionists must seal their minds into logic-tight compartments in order to appreciate the beauty of nature while at the same time trying to explain it from natural causes, but they do it nonetheless. Dpbsmith 15:55, 22 January 2007 (EST)

Reply: I personally believe that God purposefully created nature for humans to enjoy and care for and that he purposefully made it beautiful as a blessing for us. nevertheless, from an evolutionary standpoint, beauty can still be explained; if we all came from a common ancestor, especially given our reliance on nature for suvival, I don't see why the theory of evolution cannot be reconciled with the fact that 99% of Americans find beauty in autumn foliage.

--BenjaminS 23:57, 14 January 2007 (EST)

8. Abiogenesis is impossible. Even the simplest life form possible would be way too complicated to spring from nothing.

Counter Regardless if it's possible or not, it's not an argument against macroevolution.

No: In short... no. In long... there is much evidence against the theory that proves it is false. First of all there is the classic argument that the "missing links" are still missing. Here is what Darwin had to say on the subject.

"Geological research, though it has added numerous species to existing and extinct genera, and has made the intervals between some few groups less wide then they otherwise would have been, yet has done scarcely anything in breaking the distinction between species, by connecting them together by numerous, fine, intermediate varieties; and this having been affected, is probably the gravest and most obvious of all the many objections which can be raised against my views." (The Origin of Species, 6th edition, 1962, Collier Books, NY, p.462.)

Since when you are looking for data from the earth's history the first place you would look is the fossil record. What does the fossil record say? It says macroevolution never happened. There are even less documented "missing links" today then there were in Darwin's day. Obviously, macro-evolutionists want these "missing" links to be found desperately based on the elaborate measures they have gone through to try and fake the public out into believing one has been found. Take, for example, the famous Nebraska Man. He was supposed "evidence" for macro-evolution but in reality he was based entirely on a tooth from an extinct species of pig found among some ancient tools![4] This is only the beginning of the evidence against macro-evolution and I will be adding more to this edit as I get the time! PhilipB 11:06, 17 December 2006 (EST)

Evolution is a Racist Philosophy

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes ... will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man 2nd ed (New York: A. L. Burt Co., I 874), p. 178)."

"The Negroid stock is even more ancient than the Caucasian and Mongolian, as may be proved by an examination not only of the brain, of the hair, of the bodily characters. such as the teeth, the genitalia, the sense organs, but of the instincts, the intelligence. The standard of intelligence of the average Negro is similar to that of the eleven-year-old youth of the species Homo sapiens. (Henry Fairfield Osborn, "The Evolution of the Human Races," Natural History, Jan./Feb. 1926. Reprinted in Natural History 89 (April 1980): 129.)" -evolutionist Henry Fairfield Osborn

The full title of Darwin's book is On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

Hitler's atrocities were based on evolutionary philosophy.

Evolution has certainly been used by racists in support of their views. Racists have used many things, including Christianity, in support of their views. Think of the burning crosses of the Ku Klux Klan.

And, yes, Darwin shared the common prejudices of his day... which was the time when the British Empire was busily colonizing places inhabited by dark-skinned people. You would have been hard-pressed to find many people in Darwin's England who were not racists, by today's standards.

I think the point being raised here is an appropriate one to raise. But I think "evolution is a racist philosophy" is an exaggeration. Dpbsmith 15:36, 22 January 2007 (EST)

Christianity is not racist at its core, yet it is made to seem racist by some. Jesus came to save all, not just more "advanced races." Evolution is racist at its core, yet it is made to seem like it's not. Dpbsmith, you say that "Darwin shared the common prejudices of his day," this is true, but what does that have to do with he argument? Are you saying that racism influenced him when he came up with evolution, in the way that he uses evolution to support racism? PhilipB 16:09, 22 January 2007 (EST)

1) I'm acknowledging that the quotation from Darwin can fairly be described as racist. 2) I'm saying that many evil things are done in the name of many causes, and that people who do evil things will usually find a way to justify them. 3) I'm saying that I think more people have been killed by people claiming to be acting in the name of Jesus than by people claiming to be acting in the name of Darwin.

It is sometimes difficult to believe just how prevasive racism was from, perhaps, the mid-1800s through the mid-1900s. When The New York Times reviewed Longfellow's Song of Hiawatha in 1855, the reviewer said that Longfellow had "embalm[ed] pleasantly enough the monstrous traditions of an uninteresting, and, one may almost say, a justly exterminated race." That doesn't excuse Darwin. But it does put it into context. I think I agree with you to the extent that Darwin said things that can be fairly called "racist" and that Jesus did not. I don't agree that that makes evolution "racist at the core." OK, I think I've made my point clearly enough... I'll leave you to get in the last word if you like. Dpbsmith 18:26, 22 January 2007 (EST)

Also note that racism on Darwin's part in no way matters for whether the modern theory of evolution is either racist or correct. First, in general, the truth or falsity of any idea is independent of who it came from (if Darwin were a serial killer who liked to steal candy from babies it would not change the validity of his ideas in the slightest (if you don't believe me, perform the same thought experiment with Newton or Josiah Willard Gibbs). Second, the modern neo-synthesis is far removed from Darwin's original notions. JoshuaZ 22:34, 6 February 2007 (EST)

@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 #**'''Counter:''' There has been enough time enough time to generate existing biological diversity.
 #***'''Counter:''' The time argument doesn't help.  Decay, scattering, extinction, defects, disasters, etc., all INCREASE over time.  Besides, all mutations are harmful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:54, 21 December 2006 (EST)
+NATURAL genetic changes can only account for diversity within a species.  Mendellian genetics has demonstrated the existence of a closed field of genetic changes which can occur through the reproductive process.
 #*#The speed of evolution is measured by the [[w:Darwin (unit)|darwin]] (change in an organism's character by a factor of e per million years.) [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#morphological_rates]

Difference between revisions of "Debate:Is the theory of macroevolution true?"

Revision as of 18:26, February 13, 2007

Yes

No

Evolution is a Racist Philosophy

Navigation menu

Personal tools

Namespaces

Variants

Views

More

Search

Popular Links

donate

Edit Console