Answers for Eight questions for Evolutionists

[Blog of Reason]

Discussion thread for the blog entry "Answers for Eight questions for Evolutionists" by he_who_is_nobody.

Permalink: http://blog.leagueofreason.org.uk/reason/answers-for-eight-questions-for-evolutionists/

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Bearing in mind that, of the eight questions, only one really has anything to do with evolution, there seems little point in catering to him and his irrelevant questions.

The only question that directly involves the theory of evolution is:

7) How did sex arise? Seeing as how there are miriads of sexual reproduction systems in organisms, pretty much NONE of which are compatible with one another in reproduction. See CrEvo Rant # 13 Ian’s Sex Video for the quick low down on the problems you face in explaining this dilema. I’m not interested in sexual fantasies of how one system evolved into the other, I’m interested in factual, scientific evidence – observed changes, like any good scientist would expect of a theory.

Sex arose through evolution - and, since he's declared that he's not interested in that answer, there's little point in explaining any further. If he relents on this, then he could read the relevant chapter of Nick Lane's book, Life Ascending.

Ones that relate to it are:

1) Let’s start at the beginning: How did the first life arise? If you have no life, then you have no evolution. Following the laws of science and nature, how did that first life arise?

This has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, per se, but abiogenesis.

As I've explained elsewhere, the switch form inorganic to organic chemistry occurred when an atom of carbon combined with an atom of hydrogen to form the simplest hydrocarbon molecule, CH. At that point, one is at the foot of the mountain that leads to life. Life itself occurred somewhere on the path up the mountain.

None of the other questions are related to evolution - worse, none of them make sense in the context of the relevant sciences to which they refer.

Also, what he really should be saying instead of "evolutionists" is "science-oriented people" and/or "scientists".

Kindestr regards,

James

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Bearing in mind that, of the eight questions, only one really has anything to do with evolution, there seems little point in catering to him and his irrelevant questions.

I hope you do not see this post as catering. I made it because I thought it would be fun to answer all of Juby’s questions, especially, because he actually thought they would be challenging. Addressing creationists' questions up front, while in turn, they are unable to address the simplest questions posed to them exposes how intellectually bankrupt their position truly is.

Sex arose through evolution - and, since he's declared that he's not interested in that answer, there's little point in explaining any further. If he relents on this, then he could read the relevant chapter of Nick Lane's book, Life Ascending.

Simply saying "sex arose through evolution" is not the best of answers for this question. I see that as no better than GodDidIt. However, there is not a definitive answer for why sex arose (as Dr. Moran points out). In my humble opinion, I think sex is more a product of our evolutionary history, as appose to a direct adaptation to any environmental factors. What I mean by this is that genetic drift probably played a larger roll in why organisms have sex, as appose to natural selection. This is just my speculation and why I did not post this in the blog as my answer.

None of the other questions are related to evolution - worse, none of them make sense in the context of the relevant sciences to which they refer.

In my opinion, 5, 6, and 7 actually deal with evolutionary theory, all be it they do it in an ignorant (creationist) way. The idea of information in DNA and origin of sex are legitimate questions that can be answered through evolutionary theory. One has to define the correct terms before one can answer those questions and that is where Juby (and all creationists) fail in these questions about information.

Also, what he really should be saying instead of "evolutionists" is "science-oriented people" and/or "scientists".

You are 100% correct on that part and I should have made it clearer in my post that he was asking these questions of science proponents and not only evolutionary proponents.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

I hope you do not see this post as catering. I made it because I thought it would be fun to answer all of Juby’s questions, especially, because he actually thought they would be challenging. Addressing creationists' questions up front, while in turn, they are unable to address the simplest questions posed to them exposes how intellectually bankrupt their position truly is.

I'm not referring to your blog post, HWIN.

It's just that since he's indicated that he's not interested in the real answers to the questions, and YouTube doesn't really allow a proper response to be posted - unless you posted a link to this discussion thread!? - there's little point in playing his game.

Simply saying "sex arose through evolution" is not the best of answers for this question. I see that as no better than GodDidIt. However, there is not a definitive answer for why sex arose (as Dr. Moran points out). In my humble opinion, I think sex is more a product of our evolutionary history, as appose to a direct adaptation to any environmental factors. What I mean by this is that genetic drift probably played a larger roll in why organisms have sex, as appose to natural selection. This is just my speculation and why I did not post this in the blog as my answer.

At the end of the day, the answer to "sex" (reproduction) is that it arose through evolution, regardless of the details.

Since he's not interested in this, and the details equally all invovle evolution, the answer will be ignored and/or rejected.

Incidentally, I posted a couple of questions to Dr. Moran's article.

In my opinion, 5, 6, and 7 actually deal with evolutionary theory, all be it they do it in an ignorant (creationist) way. The idea of information in DNA and origin of sex are legitimate questions that can be answered through evolutionary theory. One has to define the correct terms before one can answer those questions and that is where Juby (and all creationists) fail in these questions about information.

Granted, yet the fact that they continue to trot out these ridiculous questions despite they're having been answered umpteen times before, shows that the public faces of creationism are not interested in the truth - only in maintaining their own beliefs regardless of the truth and their hold over those who've fallen prey to their disinformation.

I realize that what "evolutionists" are really fighting for is to free the minds of the masses who may be - and are being - misled by these individuals.

If one were to draw up a list where all of Juby's questions have been asked by him and answered, this would show that his current list are the product of either incompetence or bearing false witness.

(I apologise if my response doesn't come across well - I feel that it hasn't - I'm dealing with some family issues at present and am not at my best.)

Kindest regards,

James