Off Topic: The Flood
This topic has moved here: Subject: Do you believe in evolution?
  • Subject: Do you believe in evolution?
Subject: Do you believe in evolution?
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

13.72 billion years in the making.

On December 1st, 2012, I met Neil deGrasse Tyson. I shook the man's hand, and even made him laugh. Not much else to do with my life now.

These were his questions:

Posted by: werdnaz
Many facts about evolution are still unresolvable:
Life forms between ape and man should still live if they were genetically superior to monkeys.
Apes still live, but they should have died off according to evolution, as they were the least fit race to survive.
Though the chance for genetic mutation to occur is small, the chance for a good mutation is incredibly small. The chance that a boy is born with a third arm is incredibly tiny. How would he find a fit candidate to reproduce with if he is the only one of his species to have a third arm. It is impossible for his gene to be carried on.

  • 12.26.2012 11:17 PM PDT

Please do not send me group invites.

Of course I do. It's a fact. It happens.

  • 12.26.2012 11:20 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

For anyone following this argument I don't believe in evolution mostly on philosophical grounds however I will present some facts for my reasons against it:
Life forms between ape and man should still live if they were genetically superior to monkeys.
Apes still live, but they should have died off according to evolution, as they were the least fit race to survive.
Though the chance for genetic mutation to occur is small, the chance for a good mutation is incredibly small. The chance that a boy is born with a third arm is incredibly tiny. How would he find a fit candidate to reproduce with if he is the only one of his species to have a third arm. It is impossible for his gene to be carried on.

I am not an anti-evolution expert so I do not have all the arguments against evolution. Those above are just a small sample of those I can remember.

I think that evolution is flawed for mostly philosophical reasons however I think that it should be made a theorem before we use it to progress, because if these fundamental assumptions are proven wrong, we will waste many years of our lives studying something that mightn't be true.

TLDR: Evolution shouldn't be believed until it is made to be a theorem

  • 12.26.2012 11:21 PM PDT

If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friends.

The Flood Theory of Deterioration: q(p)=(qi)e^(-p/r)

Where q(p) is the quality of the thread as a function of p posts, (qi) is the inital quality of the first post, p is the amount of posts and r is the e-peen of the original poster.

This picture seems relevant to this thread.

Edit: Werdnaz, nothing you posted are flaws in evolutionary theory. The animals between Apes and Humans, which isn't a correct assertion to make in the first place as Apes and Humans share a common ancestor that is now extinct rather than Humans evolving from Apes, also ignores that things are not genetically superior to something else. It comes down to which is better suited to living in their environment.

Assuming your postulate was valid in the first place, if Monkeys were well adapted to their environment but were spread over a large area, say part of that large area undergoes a change, becomes a much less dense jungle area say, then monkeys that thrive primarily in trees would start to have issues.

The monkeys that still live in well forested areas would still be doing just fine.

So as the deforestation happens and it turns more to grassland, a taller animal, that can see farther will be able to better spot predators and more easily get away from them. As time goes on these may be continually replaced by subsequent species that are better able to live in a grassland.

Meanwhile the monkeys that live in well forested areas would still be doing just fine as their environment hasn't changed and they are well suited for it.

[Edited on 12.26.2012 11:30 PM PST]

  • 12.26.2012 11:23 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

13.72 billion years in the making.

On December 1st, 2012, I met Neil deGrasse Tyson. I shook the man's hand, and even made him laugh. Not much else to do with my life now.

Posted by: werdnaz
TLDR: Evolution shouldn't be believed until it is made to be a theorem

A theorem is something that can be proven.

It basically already has been proven, so it needn't have that title.

  • 12.26.2012 11:23 PM PDT

Artes, Scientia, Veritas

Sapere Aude

"But I do not think we're invincible"

LOL.

Posted by: werdnaz

Life forms between ape and man should still live if they were genetically superior to monkeys.
First of all, this is a nonsensical assertion. There are no "life forms between ape and man" because man is an ape. You are misunderstanding how evolution works.

Apes still live, but they should have died off according to evolution, as they were the least fit race to survive.Why do you assert that they were the least fit race? Any race that survived is, by definition, evolutionarily fit.
Though the chance for genetic mutation to occur is small, the chance for a good mutation is incredibly small. The chance that a boy is born with a third arm is incredibly tiny. How would he find a fit candidate to reproduce with if he is the only one of his species to have a third arm. It is impossible for his gene to be carried on.This, too, is nonsensical. It is true that the odds of mutation in general (and beneficial mutation in particular) are small, but over geological scales of time, unlikely things tend to happen quite frequently. I'm not sure why you think that someone having a third arm would render them incapable of interbreeding, but your assumption that evolution and speciation are things that happen to individuals and within single generations are both incorrect. Speciation takes many generations worth of cumulative genetic change, usually with non-genetic reproductive barriers between different populations of the same species.

Posted by: werdnaz


I think that evolution is flawed for mostly philosophical reasons...
Such as...?

Evolution shouldn't be believed until it is made to be a theoremTheorems exist in mathematics, not biology.

The entirety of your anti-evolution position is quite clearly based in a poor understanding of both evolutionary theory and the philosophy of science. Please learn about those two things before you try to discredit well-established science.

[Edited on 12.26.2012 11:26 PM PST]

  • 12.26.2012 11:24 PM PDT

Please do not send me group invites.


Posted by: werdnaz
TLDR: Evolution shouldn't be believed until it is made to be a theorem
A scientific theory will never become a theorem. A scientific theory is an explanation of something.

  • 12.26.2012 11:24 PM PDT

Umm sure

  • 12.26.2012 11:28 PM PDT

*´¨)---––•(-• Dutchy •-)•–--–-(¨´*
¸.•´¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)••(¨*•.¸ (¨´*•.¸´â€¢.¸
(¸.•´ (¸.•Everything fails•.¸) ´â€¢.¸)


Posted by: NinjaLord77
Umm sure
You don't seem confident in your answer.

  • 12.26.2012 11:33 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

13.72 billion years in the making.

On December 1st, 2012, I met Neil deGrasse Tyson. I shook the man's hand, and even made him laugh. Not much else to do with my life now.

Posted by: werdnaz
Counterarguments?

  • 12.26.2012 11:35 PM PDT

I'm not an idiot so of course I do.

  • 12.26.2012 11:36 PM PDT

Artes, Scientia, Veritas

Sapere Aude

"But I do not think we're invincible"

He doesn't need counterarguments. He needs to understand evolutionary theory.

Srs.

  • 12.26.2012 11:36 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: Smelly Wookie
I don't I just think the concept of evolution is silly, but I believe it to a certain extent. I think that apes turning in to humans is silly.

  • 12.26.2012 11:38 PM PDT

I believe in evolution within a species. And that's about it. And I believe caterpillars can turn into butterflies.

  • 12.26.2012 11:38 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

13.72 billion years in the making.

On December 1st, 2012, I met Neil deGrasse Tyson. I shook the man's hand, and even made him laugh. Not much else to do with my life now.

Posted by: Painis Cupcake
Posted by: Smelly Wookie
I don't I just think the concept of evolution is silly, but I believe it to a certain extent. I think that apes turning in to humans is silly.

Again, apes didn't become humans.

  • 12.26.2012 11:38 PM PDT

Artes, Scientia, Veritas

Sapere Aude

"But I do not think we're invincible"


Posted by: Painis Cupcake

Posted by: Smelly Wookie
I don't I just think the concept of evolution is silly, but I believe it to a certain extent. I think that apes turning in to humans is silly.
Humans are apes. Your objection is meaningless.

  • 12.26.2012 11:39 PM PDT

Artes, Scientia, Veritas

Sapere Aude

"But I do not think we're invincible"


Posted by: WinyPit82
Posted by: Painis Cupcake
Posted by: Smelly Wookie
I don't I just think the concept of evolution is silly, but I believe it to a certain extent. I think that apes turning in to humans is silly.

Again, apes didn't become humans.
There were pre-human apes, but yes, this objection is meaningless.

  • 12.26.2012 11:40 PM PDT

Please do not send me group invites.


Posted by: NewRadical12

Posted by: Painis Cupcake

Posted by: Smelly Wookie
I don't I just think the concept of evolution is silly, but I believe it to a certain extent. I think that apes turning in to humans is silly.
Humans are apes. Your objection is meaningless.
It's becoming increasingly more apparent that the main reason for the lack of belief in evolution is misinformation or ignorance.

  • 12.26.2012 11:40 PM PDT

hmm

Yes, completely.

  • 12.26.2012 11:40 PM PDT

Yes I do.

  • 12.26.2012 11:46 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: NewRadical12
LOL.

Posted by: werdnaz

Life forms between ape and man should still live if they were genetically superior to monkeys.
First of all, this is a nonsensical assertion. There are no "life forms between ape and man" because man is an ape. You are misunderstanding how evolution works.

Apes still live, but they should have died off according to evolution, as they were the least fit race to survive.Why do you assert that they were the least fit race? Any race that survived is, by definition, evolutionarily fit.
Though the chance for genetic mutation to occur is small, the chance for a good mutation is incredibly small. The chance that a boy is born with a third arm is incredibly tiny. How would he find a fit candidate to reproduce with if he is the only one of his species to have a third arm. It is impossible for his gene to be carried on.This, too, is nonsensical. It is true that the odds of mutation in general (and beneficial mutation in particular) are small, but over geological scales of time, unlikely things tend to happen quite frequently. I'm not sure why you think that someone having a third arm would render them incapable of interbreeding, but your assumption that evolution and speciation are things that happen to individuals and within single generations are both incorrect. Speciation takes many generations worth of cumulative genetic change, usually with non-genetic reproductive barriers between different populations of the same species.

For the first argument I consider your feedback inadequate.
You state that man is ape however evolutionary supporters also state that ape became another species before becoming man. Ape did not just suddenly become man, despite how you define man to be ape. Apes underwent evolution into many intermediate species before becoming man. These evolutionary advances would have taken so many years to occur that if a race that evolved was not fit to survive, it would not have had the time to reproduce to allow evolution. Any intermediate species which had to occur would need to still be alive today if evolution occured.

Any race that is required to evolve cannot be fit to survive. Survival of the fittest would not allow apes to survive and only man would exist. Your counterargument is flawed because it is based on your belief that evolution is true.

Your third counter-argument is better thought out but still invalid. You state that it takes generations of breeding with the original species to produce a difference within a race so that the mutation will either completely change the species, so that all apes must become man, or that the mutated species must always be capable of reproducing with the original species. By your logic evolution cannot occur over barriers over barriers of reproduction, so if man were descended from ape, we should be able to still breed with them.

Furthermore, the possibilities for a single race to undergo a single mutation is small but nowhere near as small as the chance that several members of that species all undergo the same mutation and are capable of breeding with each other.

  • 12.26.2012 11:47 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

13.72 billion years in the making.

On December 1st, 2012, I met Neil deGrasse Tyson. I shook the man's hand, and even made him laugh. Not much else to do with my life now.

Posted by: werdnaz
Furthermore, the possibilities for a single race to undergo a single mutation is small but nowhere near as small as the chance that several members of that species all undergo the same mutation and are capable of breeding with each other.

Before you get slaughtered, you're aware that a mutation doesn't require both parents to have it for said mutation to be passed down, right?

  • 12.26.2012 11:50 PM PDT

Please do not send me group invites.


Posted by: werdnaz

Posted by: NewRadical12
LOL.

Posted by: werdnaz

Life forms between ape and man should still live if they were genetically superior to monkeys.
First of all, this is a nonsensical assertion. There are no "life forms between ape and man" because man is an ape. You are misunderstanding how evolution works.

Apes still live, but they should have died off according to evolution, as they were the least fit race to survive.Why do you assert that they were the least fit race? Any race that survived is, by definition, evolutionarily fit.
Though the chance for genetic mutation to occur is small, the chance for a good mutation is incredibly small. The chance that a boy is born with a third arm is incredibly tiny. How would he find a fit candidate to reproduce with if he is the only one of his species to have a third arm. It is impossible for his gene to be carried on.This, too, is nonsensical. It is true that the odds of mutation in general (and beneficial mutation in particular) are small, but over geological scales of time, unlikely things tend to happen quite frequently. I'm not sure why you think that someone having a third arm would render them incapable of interbreeding, but your assumption that evolution and speciation are things that happen to individuals and within single generations are both incorrect. Speciation takes many generations worth of cumulative genetic change, usually with non-genetic reproductive barriers between different populations of the same species.

For the first argument I consider your feedback inadequate.
You state that man is ape however evolutionary supporters also state that ape became another species before becoming man. Ape did not just suddenly become man, despite how you define man to be ape. Apes underwent evolution into many intermediate species before becoming man. These evolutionary advances would have taken so many years to occur that if a race that evolved was not fit to survive, it would not have had the time to reproduce to allow evolution. Any intermediate species which had to occur would need to still be alive today if evolution occured.

Any race that is required to evolve cannot be fit to survive. Survival of the fittest would not allow apes to survive and only man would exist. Your counterargument is flawed because it is based on your belief that evolution is true.

Your third counter-argument is better thought out but still invalid. You state that it takes generations of breeding with the original species to produce a difference within a race so that the mutation will either completely change the species, so that all apes must become man, or that the mutated species must always be capable of reproducing with the original species. By your logic evolution cannot occur over barriers over barriers of reproduction, so if man were descended from ape, we should be able to still breed with them.

Furthermore, the possibilities for a single race to undergo a single mutation is small but nowhere near as small as the chance that several members of that species all undergo the same mutation and are capable of breeding with each other.
I find it odd that you have so many issues with his arguments, yet the theory of evolution has no scientific competition.

  • 12.26.2012 11:52 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: WinyPit82
Posted by: werdnaz
Furthermore, the possibilities for a single race to undergo a single mutation is small but nowhere near as small as the chance that several members of that species all undergo the same mutation and are capable of breeding with each other.

Before you get slaughtered, you're aware that a mutation doesn't require both parents to have it for said mutation to be passed down, right?

I am aware. I am also aware that a gene may die out if the recessive genes are not kept after being passed on, hence if someone does not come along soon enough with the exact same genetic mutation, the gene has an incredibly high chance of simply being lost

  • 12.26.2012 11:54 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: MadMax888
I find it odd that you have so many issues with his arguments, yet the theory of evolution has no scientific competition.

I do because I believe evolution is false. Mankind should not pursue an idea that is wrong simply because all other ideas are also considered to be wrong

  • 12.26.2012 11:56 PM PDT