-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evol...
- Thread starter Squawk
- Start date
Giliell
New Member
Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo
Well, I must say this debate isn't much in terms of eductation, not since we left the ERVs, but a hell lot of fun.
The lack of educational value is not your fault, Squwak, your opponent just lacks the most basic grasp of what he's talking about, so the discussion is around, well, pretty basic things
Well, I must say this debate isn't much in terms of eductation, not since we left the ERVs, but a hell lot of fun.
The lack of educational value is not your fault, Squwak, your opponent just lacks the most basic grasp of what he's talking about, so the discussion is around, well, pretty basic things
he_who_is_nobody
Well-Known Member
Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo
Bravo Squawk. This was a wonderful display of your intelligence and ability to research. There is a treasure troop of information in every single one of your posts. I feel it should be acknowledge that not only did you out research micah1116, but you also were able to out class him, for the most part. You kept the insults far below what was coming from the peanut gallery. It is always great to see the evolutionary proponent not resort to insults, even when dealing with someone like micah1116.
Now the only thing left to see is if mica1116 will address any of the criticisms posted here.
Bravo Squawk. This was a wonderful display of your intelligence and ability to research. There is a treasure troop of information in every single one of your posts. I feel it should be acknowledge that not only did you out research micah1116, but you also were able to out class him, for the most part. You kept the insults far below what was coming from the peanut gallery. It is always great to see the evolutionary proponent not resort to insults, even when dealing with someone like micah1116.
Now the only thing left to see is if mica1116 will address any of the criticisms posted here.
ImprobableJoe
New Member
Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo
I'm pretty sure there's no 100% honest way to discuss micah's performance without breaking forum rules. Squawk, you did awesome.
I'm pretty sure there's no 100% honest way to discuss micah's performance without breaking forum rules. Squawk, you did awesome.
CommonEnlightenment
New Member
Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo
I completely understand that the title of the topic was "Does evidence support neo-darwinian evolution", with that being stated, I think the overall issue remains the same:
Once 'creationists' apply the same line of thinking or logic to their position as they do in asking questions/forming arguments against evolution, I think it's quite apparent which side has more abundant evidence (verifiable/falsifiable).
The faith 'gene' is a tricky thing to deal with..... it has been this way for millennia.
Some individuals will continue to draw their conclusions on things that can't be proven false in order to give them a sense of being 'right'. I think a few more of those sneaky paradigm shifts are needed before we can actually move forward.
I completely understand that the title of the topic was "Does evidence support neo-darwinian evolution", with that being stated, I think the overall issue remains the same:
Once 'creationists' apply the same line of thinking or logic to their position as they do in asking questions/forming arguments against evolution, I think it's quite apparent which side has more abundant evidence (verifiable/falsifiable).
The faith 'gene' is a tricky thing to deal with..... it has been this way for millennia.
Some individuals will continue to draw their conclusions on things that can't be proven false in order to give them a sense of being 'right'. I think a few more of those sneaky paradigm shifts are needed before we can actually move forward.
Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo
Morning all. Thanks for all the input, comments and feedback over the course of this debate. I'll likely have a bit more to say later, but posting from my phone so will restrict this post. The temptation to use some of your arguments was strong, I admit.
Morning all. Thanks for all the input, comments and feedback over the course of this debate. I'll likely have a bit more to say later, but posting from my phone so will restrict this post. The temptation to use some of your arguments was strong, I admit.
DutchLiam84
New Member
Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo
This whole debate was like shooting fish in a barrel. The fish being micah of course....
Even in micah's final post he holds on to the strawman version of Evolution which was taught to him by a mooching, lying scumbag of a high school dropout with an internet connection!
I think the best argument you presented was this:
While reading micah's posts I was really getting pissed off........somehow these creationists really get to me. I don't know if I just can't stand the stupidity or that they attack what I've been studying for many years now. The nerve to think that they can change definitions and then accuse US for changing the definitions.....it makes me want to punch something (something non living of course). The major problem I have is that their knowledge is never tested. Lawrence Krauss said this beautifully:
I can say whatever the phuk I want, just make shit up, end the sentence with God Bless and basically any creationist will believe me without question.
This whole debate was like shooting fish in a barrel. The fish being micah of course....
Even in micah's final post he holds on to the strawman version of Evolution which was taught to him by a mooching, lying scumbag of a high school dropout with an internet connection!
I think the best argument you presented was this:
He almost completely ignored this......he kept asking for a new structure that should be presented by YOU while you pointed out that this is not needed. He was asking you to basically prove a negative.....and when you failed to do so, he chose the dishonest SoG tactic and declared victory!Squawk said:
While reading micah's posts I was really getting pissed off........somehow these creationists really get to me. I don't know if I just can't stand the stupidity or that they attack what I've been studying for many years now. The nerve to think that they can change definitions and then accuse US for changing the definitions.....it makes me want to punch something (something non living of course). The major problem I have is that their knowledge is never tested. Lawrence Krauss said this beautifully:
This is exactly where the problem lies...they teach themselves that 3x3 is 10 and they won't even consider the possibility that they might be wrong....it's narcissistic behavior!Lawrence Krauss said:
I can say whatever the phuk I want, just make shit up, end the sentence with God Bless and basically any creationist will believe me without question.
Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo
As it happens I didn't nick a single idea, much as it was tempting. Draft versions for my posts were laid out before I read into anything anyone had said. That said I did leave out a couple of ideas in final versions because they were so neatly covered in the comments thread. When someone has posted 1000 words, and images, on a given subject, crow barring 50 words into my word allowance seemed a waste of time.
Inferno said:Absolutely smashing Squawk. And yes, I was sometimes wondering why you used almost the exact same words as were posted here.
Micah, no words. It's a real shame.
As it happens I didn't nick a single idea, much as it was tempting. Draft versions for my posts were laid out before I read into anything anyone had said. That said I did leave out a couple of ideas in final versions because they were so neatly covered in the comments thread. When someone has posted 1000 words, and images, on a given subject, crow barring 50 words into my word allowance seemed a waste of time.
Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo
I keep getting comments from people trying to tell me that new structures are not needed for evolutionary change, and this is exactly what Squawk said as well.
Can ANYONE defend this arguement? It's the most rediculous thing I've ever head if my life and isn't supported by science in the least bit.
So are you telling me that a bacteria doesn't need new structures to evolve into a mite? And there's no structural differences between a bacteria and a human? Or no structural differences between an elephant and a human, and no structural differences between a chimp and a human? Afterall, I believe chimps have 300 bones(correct me if the number is wrong), and humans have 206. So where are these transitions showing chimps slowly losing these bones and evolving into humans?
Show me one observable example of this.
I keep getting comments from people trying to tell me that new structures are not needed for evolutionary change, and this is exactly what Squawk said as well.
Can ANYONE defend this arguement? It's the most rediculous thing I've ever head if my life and isn't supported by science in the least bit.
So are you telling me that a bacteria doesn't need new structures to evolve into a mite? And there's no structural differences between a bacteria and a human? Or no structural differences between an elephant and a human, and no structural differences between a chimp and a human? Afterall, I believe chimps have 300 bones(correct me if the number is wrong), and humans have 206. So where are these transitions showing chimps slowly losing these bones and evolving into humans?
Show me one observable example of this.
Prolescum
New Member
Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo
Trying to explain anything to you micah is akin to explaining gravity to a brick.
If, after two excessively long 'debates', you still cannot fathom the basic concepts (which you clearly can't or more likely, won't), you might as well stop embarrassing yourself on this board with your repeated attempts to goad others into pointless squabbles.
Trying to explain anything to you micah is akin to explaining gravity to a brick.
If, after two excessively long 'debates', you still cannot fathom the basic concepts (which you clearly can't or more likely, won't), you might as well stop embarrassing yourself on this board with your repeated attempts to goad others into pointless squabbles.
Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo
Quite easy. Squawk already showed that but you've ignored that.
Irkun is quite correct that Humans never evolved from chimps but that we are rather a cousin of chimps. However, that doesn't really answer your question, it just shows your ignorance.
First of all, evolution is not about a change in morphology, it is simply about a change in the allele frequencies of an organism. For example, you wouldn't really realize a change in morphology from an ancient bacterium to another, they would look quite alike and would be classed as "one kind" by your definition. (One of the poorest definitions of a "kind" I have yet to hear, as I will explain soon. Hopefully. If I get the time. Maybe. Perhaps.)
Secondly, Squawk pointed out that comparative anatomy isn't the best evidence we have for evolution. The best evidence comes from molecular studies, because they are less reliable on interpretation and ones own whim.
Thirdly, Squawk pointed out that evolution acts on what is already there and modifies it. A perfect example is the human ear:
Incredible, an already present structure was used to create "something new".
Not having the state of mind to research any of the fossils, I would suggest that most of the bones from early ancestors of humans and chimps were either split or merged to form those of humans. Is that a new structure? No, of course not.
And it's the same with all other structures.
Watch this video from the great Carl Sagan and reply to this with the following:
At what minute/second of the video did a new "structure" arise? Explain why it is a new structure and not a modification of a structure present 0.0000000000001 sec before that.
Our Evolution
micah1116 said:
Quite easy. Squawk already showed that but you've ignored that.
Irkun is quite correct that Humans never evolved from chimps but that we are rather a cousin of chimps. However, that doesn't really answer your question, it just shows your ignorance.
First of all, evolution is not about a change in morphology, it is simply about a change in the allele frequencies of an organism. For example, you wouldn't really realize a change in morphology from an ancient bacterium to another, they would look quite alike and would be classed as "one kind" by your definition. (One of the poorest definitions of a "kind" I have yet to hear, as I will explain soon. Hopefully. If I get the time. Maybe. Perhaps.)
Secondly, Squawk pointed out that comparative anatomy isn't the best evidence we have for evolution. The best evidence comes from molecular studies, because they are less reliable on interpretation and ones own whim.
Thirdly, Squawk pointed out that evolution acts on what is already there and modifies it. A perfect example is the human ear:
Incredible, an already present structure was used to create "something new".
Not having the state of mind to research any of the fossils, I would suggest that most of the bones from early ancestors of humans and chimps were either split or merged to form those of humans. Is that a new structure? No, of course not.
And it's the same with all other structures.
Watch this video from the great Carl Sagan and reply to this with the following:
At what minute/second of the video did a new "structure" arise? Explain why it is a new structure and not a modification of a structure present 0.0000000000001 sec before that.
Our Evolution
he_who_is_nobody
Well-Known Member
Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo
It looks like someone did not read this thread. Perhaps if you took the time to read it you would see that all your questions have been answered. I will give you a little help by quoting something I have already posted about this argument.
It looks like someone did not read this thread. Perhaps if you took the time to read it you would see that all your questions have been answered. I will give you a little help by quoting something I have already posted about this argument.
he_who_is_nobody said:micah1116 said:
Your ignorance of anatomy is appalling.
Micah1116, can you please point out the new morphological structure in the wing? Furthermore, since it is safe to assume that you do not believe birds evolved from dinosaurs can you tell us which arms belong to birds and which belong to dinosaurs. You should include the reasons why you believe they are birds and dinosaurs based on your definition of morphology.
Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo
"So are you telling me that a bacteria doesn't need new structures to evolve into a mite?"
That's not what he's saying in the slightest. Of course they need new structure for that (not that bacteria evolve into mites anyway, but I see your point), but evolution can occur without structural change.
An example:
The first one is a false-color image of Staphylococcus aureus, while the second one is a picture of an antibiotic-resistant strain of the same bacteria. Notice the lack of morphological change even though it has evolved to resisting antibiotics.
micah1116 said:
"So are you telling me that a bacteria doesn't need new structures to evolve into a mite?"
That's not what he's saying in the slightest. Of course they need new structure for that (not that bacteria evolve into mites anyway, but I see your point), but evolution can occur without structural change.
An example:
The first one is a false-color image of Staphylococcus aureus, while the second one is a picture of an antibiotic-resistant strain of the same bacteria. Notice the lack of morphological change even though it has evolved to resisting antibiotics.
WarK
Active Member
Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo
If only you could give us an example of a new structure that appears out of the blue between a species and it's ancestor.
If you can't that means such things don't occur and there's no need for evolution to explain them.
micah1116 said:
If only you could give us an example of a new structure that appears out of the blue between a species and it's ancestor.
If you can't that means such things don't occur and there's no need for evolution to explain them.
Prolescum
New Member
Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo
Please, with all due respect, do not respond to me. Your reams of inane, pointless gibberish, entwined with a chasm-sized subtlety deficit (both your recognition of it and in your application) irritates me no end, despite extended attempts to tolerate it, and I have put you on my ignore list to avoid having to talk with you further; we're just not compatible.
To put it another way, it's me not you.
lrkun said:
Please, with all due respect, do not respond to me. Your reams of inane, pointless gibberish, entwined with a chasm-sized subtlety deficit (both your recognition of it and in your application) irritates me no end, despite extended attempts to tolerate it, and I have put you on my ignore list to avoid having to talk with you further; we're just not compatible.
To put it another way, it's me not you.