Please help... Idiot attack.

[Laurens]

In the comments section to one of my videos http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FzjHNJz4tw I am being hounded by a creationist fool, I would appreciate if someone more versed in debating creationists would be willing to lend a hand with a few comments

So, when do I expect to see one animal become another? Most animals are very old species, millions of years old in fact, did evolution just stop? Where are all the living transitional forms of species today, forget the fossils? Why do, you think it is still a theory if like you said, it is proven fact...? We don't need to debate this, all knows that it is just a theory... really, everyone knows this.. because we have never proven macro-evolution, not new news here...

I just don't want this idiot to feel he has won simply because I cannot respond concisely to all of his points.

Cheers guys :mrgreen:

 

[Netheralian]

Usual response - get him to define his terms first. I doubt he can define transitional species nor theory in any way that is consistent with science.

 

[RichardMNixon]

I think he's too indoctrinated to have any sense argued into him in 500 words or less. Most of the arguments I saw were

Laurens: Verifiable scientific evidence suggests X!
Him: What?! No way! No one believes X! You're dumb!

If you ignore him will he go away or continue preaching? Maybe send him here?

 

[BrainBlow]

Send him here

 

[Laurens]

He has been sending me messages asking me to prove evolution, at first I told him where he can go and find the proof for himself, but this wasn't enough, he continued to demand proof from me, even after I repeatedly stated that if he is the one claiming an established scientific theory to be wrong, then he is the one who has to provide proof... But he wouldn't relent, so I replied with this:

Okay here's the proof:

Geological strata: We find as we look through layers of sedimentary rocks, in the earlier rocks we find species that inhabited the planet at a certain time - all in the order that we would expect to see if life had evolved. The theory of evolution would be shattered completely if we found a single mammalian fossil in the Cambrian period, for example. Showing that evolution is indeed falsifiable. We have needless to say found no such discrepancies.

Fossil record: We have a vast wealth of fossils showing the evolution of birds from dinosaurs, from fish to amphibians, from ape to man and many more. These all provide support for the theory of evolution.

DNA sequencing: We have found from our observations of DNA that it shows evidence of common descent, again providing evidence to back evolution. We could already guess through taxonomy which animals were closer related to others, DNA sequencing proved this.

Observed instances of speciation: We have, contrary to what creationists might claim observed speciation both in the lab and in the natural environment. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

We also observe evolution on the level of viruses. The reason that the HIV virus is currently impossible to cure precisely because it evolves immunity to medicine so quickly. It has a high mutation rate, and is thus extremely deadly to us.

Industries that rely on evolutionary theory: Agriculture, medicine, biochemistry, molecular biology, and genetics all rely on the theory of evolution, if it was not a fact these we these industries would not rely on it.

Most of the scientific community supports evolution, there are no disputes over its validity in any respectable scientific circles. There is little doubt as to its truth.

There.

I also offered him the opportunity to post here, I hope that he will

I haven't heard back yet

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Formal debate challenge?

 

[BrainBlow]

He has been sending me messages asking me to prove evolution, at first I told him where he can go and find the proof for himself, but this wasn't enough, he continued to demand proof from me, even after I repeatedly stated that if he is the one claiming an established scientific theory to be wrong, then he is the one who has to provide proof... But he wouldn't relent, so I replied with this:

Okay here's the proof:

Geological strata: We find as we look through layers of sedimentary rocks, in the earlier rocks we find species that inhabited the planet at a certain time - all in the order that we would expect to see if life had evolved. The theory of evolution would be shattered completely if we found a single mammalian fossil in the Cambrian period, for example. Showing that evolution is indeed falsifiable. We have needless to say found no such discrepancies.

Fossil record: We have a vast wealth of fossils showing the evolution of birds from dinosaurs, from fish to amphibians, from ape to man and many more. These all provide support for the theory of evolution.

DNA sequencing: We have found from our observations of DNA that it shows evidence of common descent, again providing evidence to back evolution. We could already guess through taxonomy which animals were closer related to others, DNA sequencing proved this.

Observed instances of speciation: We have, contrary to what creationists might claim observed speciation both in the lab and in the natural environment. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

We also observe evolution on the level of viruses. The reason that the HIV virus is currently impossible to cure precisely because it evolves immunity to medicine so quickly. It has a high mutation rate, and is thus extremely deadly to us.

Industries that rely on evolutionary theory: Agriculture, medicine, biochemistry, molecular biology, and genetics all rely on the theory of evolution, if it was not a fact these we these industries would not rely on it.

Most of the scientific community supports evolution, there are no disputes over its validity in any respectable scientific circles. There is little doubt as to its truth.

There.

I also offered him the opportunity to post here, I hope that he will

I haven't heard back yet

Well he obviously isn't going to concede, even to these very valid points.
Be prepared for him to say something worth posting in the "The stupidest thing a creatonist has ever said to you" thread.

 

[Laurens]

Formal debate challenge?

I didn't challenge him to a formal debate myself. To be honest I'm not that good at debating, especially creationists. After about 3 posts I would probably end up getting aggravated and swearing at him in capitals.

If anyone does want to challenge him, I would be more than willing to pass on the info.

 

[lrkun]

In the comments section to one of my videos http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FzjHNJz4tw I am being hounded by a creationist fool, I would appreciate if someone more versed in debating creationists would be willing to lend a hand with a few comments

So, when do I expect to see one animal become another? Most animals are very old species, millions of years old in fact, did evolution just stop? Where are all the living transitional forms of species today, forget the fossils? Why do, you think it is still a theory if like you said, it is proven fact...? We don't need to debate this, all knows that it is just a theory... really, everyone knows this.. because we have never proven macro-evolution, not new news here...

I just don't want this idiot to feel he has won simply because I cannot respond concisely to all of his points.

Cheers guys :mrgreen:

His credibility ended when he stated this.

Most animals are very old species, millions of years old in fact

That estoppes him from saying that evolution is not a fact. Because according to them, the world is but 6000+ years old.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

After reading through a few of his comments on your channel (along with the one posted here), I think it is best to just let this one go. There really is no point in discussing this in 500 character posts on the comments section. However, you said that he is sending you personal messages now. I would still think that it is not worth it, because he seems like nothing more than a troll.

In my opinion, you need to ask him to define evolution in a biological context. If he is unable to do that, than he is not worth your time. You also need him to define theory, fact, and evidence in a scientific context. Since you are discussing an aspect of science there is no point in using the lay-form of those terms. However, it seems that this person is just willfully ignorant and no amount of evidence will change his mind.

I think this video sums up the point I am making quite well:

​

It might be worth showing him this.

 

[Deleted member 619]

So, when do I expect to see one animal become another?

You don't. Indeed, if this ever happened, evolutionary theory as it stands would be pretty well falsified, because that's not a postulate of evolutionary theory. Every organism is the same species as its parents and its children. Indeed, if the fossil record were actually complete, the popular concept of species would be meaningless. As it is, it's pretty ill-defined, unless you actually employ the Biological Species Concept (BSC), which is only not ill-defined because it contains a temporal component. In this definition, which is about the most rigorous conception of species we have, a species is a population throughout which gene flow can occur at a point in time.

What this idiot is looking for is a crocoduck, or some other example of a polyphyletic organism, which would comprehensively falsify evolutionary theory.

Most animals are very old species, millions of years old in fact, did evolution just stop?

Oh, dear. This cretinist clearly thinks that the important factor is time. It isn't. What is required for speciation is not time, but generations (along with sufficient selection pressures). That's not to say, of course, that evolution would not occur in the absence of selection pressures, because it would, but it's fairly unlikely that species divergence would occur with anything like the same frequency, because then the primary function of evolution in a population would be drift, which pretty much guarantees a degree of homogeneity, except in situations where a portion of the population becomes isolated.

Where are all the living transitional forms of species today, forget the fossils?

Look in the mirror and you'll see an example. Do you look more like your father or your mother, or do you look like a combination of both? Don't like that example? Well, how about the Ensatina salamanders? While not technically transitional forms of species, they constitute a ring species, which means that gene flow can occur throughout the population, but given a certain amount of separation between subspecies, gene flow cannot occur. If an extinction event were to occur at some point in the chain (other than at the ends) what is now one species would become two, so they are transitional in the literal sense.

I suspect the question has a different agenda, though. So I'll answer that. If you really want to see an example of a transition in which both are still living, look no further than the Italian wall lizard. 5 pairs of these were transplanted from the island of Pod Kopiste in 1971 to the neighbouring island of Pod Mrcaru. The latter represents a transition.

If you want more examples, then you might want to look at the work of Richard Lenski in Escherichia coli, as his work details multiple transitions.

Why do, you think it is still a theory if like you said, it is proven fact... We don't need to debate this, all knows that it is just a theory... really, everyone knows this..?

Oh, dear. This one is worse than I thought. There are several things wrong with this, which is quite an achievement for such a short sentence. Let's begin with the 'just a theory' canard (you might want to see the post in Creationism for a more comprehensive treatment, but I'll provide a short response anyway.

In science, a theory is not a guess, or a hunch, or little angels whispering in your ear. In science, a theory is an integrated explanatory framework dealing with a class of facts of specific interest. Thus, evolution is a fact, because it has been observed actually occuring, both in the lab and in the wild. Talkorigins has a good page on observed instances of speciation dealing with precisely those observations. It happens, and there is no dispute among those who have looked at the evidence while in possession of more than two functioning neurons. The theory of evolution is a framework for explaining that fact, and other facts related to the fact of evolution.

Secondly, proof doesn't apply to empirical postulates, because 'proof' is an aximoatic construct, and requires, therefore, a system of axioms upon which to base a proof, such as mathematics of formal logic. Allow me to demonstrate with two examples of how this works, one from each discipline.

Mathematics:
Axiom:

Multiplication of two integers gives the product.

Proof:

3x4=12

Now an example from logic:

Premise 1: All cats are mammals
Premise 2: Felix is a cat
Conclusion: Felix is a mammal

In syllogistic logic, each premise is an axiom. If the premise is not axiomatic, the argument is unsound and the conclusion can be discarded (or, more correctly, need not be accepted).

And no, you don't need to debate this, because the debate only exists in your mind and the minds of the authors of the various lying, scumbag screeds that you have acquired your 'scientific' information from.

because we have never proven macro-evolution, not new news here...

Bzzzzzzzz. Thank you for playing.

The problem here is that he is using 'macroevolution' in a very non-technical sense. Let me lay this out comprehensively, because it won't take long.

Evolution, rigorously defined, takes the form 'a change in allele frequencies'. That is the proper definition employed by evolutionary biologists. Microevolution is such a change within a population of organisms, or below species level. Macroevolution is a change in allele frequencies at or above species level.

So, for example, if the particular allele that codes for red hair diminishes or increases in a population of humans, that constitutes microevolution, because it is a change in the frequency of that allele below species level.

An example of macroevolution has already been provided, in the form of the breaking of the ring species above. However, there are two examples that really bring home what macroevolution is. The first is the extinction of a species. In the case of the ring species above, we actually have, in the extinction of a part of the ring (subspecies), an extinction event that also constitutes a speciation event, which gives us two kinds of macroevolution in one! However, in a more general sense, any extinction event constitutes a macroevolutionary event, because it represents a change in allele frequencies at species level.

A further example of macroevolution, rigorously defined, is shared alleles between species. Chimpanzees and other primates share a good many alleles with humans. The study of macroevolution deals with these, because it is dealing with the tracking of changes in allele frequencies above species level.

In short, macroevolution, like evolution itself, does not mean what this ignoramus thinks it does, and he would be better served by reading some science books rather than getting his information from such sources as arsebiscuitsingenesis.cum

 

[Laurens]

Cheers hackenslash, as the guy in question has no interest in visiting this forum, would you mind if I forwarded your rebuttal to him in a personal message?

I can post the reply here if you wish (assuming I shall get one)

 

[Deleted member 619]

By all means. You might want to tone down some of what I said, especially the references to his person, if you really want a response. Up to you, though. I don't mind either way

 

[Mapp]

I've always likened the comparison to languages or human beings. Can you tell me the exact moment Latin became French? Can you tell me the exact moment that an child becomes an adult? Both of these demonstrate the silliness of the question when you're dealing with gradual incrimental changes over a long period of time.

 

[SpaceCDT]

In short, macroevolution, like evolution itself, does not mean what this ignoramus thinks it does, and he would be better served by reading some science books rather than getting his information from such sources as arsebiscuitsingenesis.cum

I don't have anything to add, except that I learnt a lot from the explanation of axioms and formal logic, that was very helpful.
And "arsebiscuitsingenesis.cum" made me ROFL

 

[Laurens]

He seems to have backed out from the discussion which suggests he doesn't have any real interest in debate or learning anything, he just likes being a nuisance.

 

[Andiferous]

He seems to have backed out from the discussion which suggests he doesn't have any real interest in debate or learning anything, he just likes being a nuisance.

I think vacant confusion tends to be a last ditch debating effort and rather common on the 'net.

I should know, you know.