Send a Message
to Heidelberg Kid

Comments

46

Joined

Aug 31, 2011

Badges

Heidelberg Kid's Favorites

Heidelberg Kid Profile

Forums Owned

Recent Posts

Evolution Debate

Evolution theory has a huge problem

Sorry, it was on the first page. I typically don't go into the second page or deeper.  (Apr 11, 2012 | post #8)

Evolution Debate

Any creationists want to debate?

Okay, 15th. Rather than spend several posts explaining all the details, I'll link to very handy resources which will take up less space when possible. So, without further ado: 1. http://www.explori ngorigins.org , and abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution 2. http://www.youtube .com/watch?v=rtmbc fb_rdc 3. Mutations have been shown to add information (http://www.youtub e.com/watch?v=e9IQ tjfTU10). Then give it time. A lot of time. Life's been around for 4 billion years, so a lot of information was able to build up. This is an oversimplification that doesn't take into account natural selection or quantum evolution, but there are 3.2 billion base pairs, and 4 billion years of evolution, so we need only ONE individual nucleotide being added every year or two to get from nothing to a man. 4. In modern Darwinian theory, natural selection is coupled with mutation. Mutation is the random creative entity. 5. Proteins are coded for in DNA. DNA can mutate, which can add information, as displayed above. Any mutations which benefit the organism will be inherited and dominate the population. Kind of like the eye's evolution: each intermediate stage provides some sort of benefit. 6. You're walking by a river. You pick up a pebble from it. How do you know the rock was smoothed by erosion from the flow of the river and not my cousin with a rock tumbler? It's all a matter of evidence. We have evidence that things evolved, none that it was designed. 7. http://www.youtube .com/watch?v=JVqxy YBuI_U 8. www.youtube.com/wa tch?v=1w0FiwfyUMM (When watching this one, please also watch the videos that are linked to in the course of the film.) 9. It's very unlikely that any individual species will fossilise, given that it must die and be buried in quite rare conditions. As Richard Dawkins points out, though (The Ancestor's Tale, p. 13), even if the fossil record was nothing but one big gap, there'd still be overwhelming evidence for evolution. Fossils are just a nice big bonus. 10. All evolution cares is whether you survive to reproduce. Whatever lets you achieve that goal gets passed on and so survives. There's no great chain of being with Man on top and amoeba on the bottom. 11. www.youtube.com/wa tch?v=NEEXK3A57Hk for intelligence. With morality, let me quote from the "Top 10 myths about evolution": <quote>As a social primate species we evolved a deep sense of right and wrong in order to accentuate and reward reciprocity and cooperation, and to attenuate and punish excessive selfishness and free riding. As well, evolution created the moral emotions that tell us that lying, adultery, and stealing are wrong because they destroy trust in human relationships that depend on truth-telling, fidelity, and respect for property. It would not be possible for a social primate species to survive without some moral sense. On the constitution of human nature is built the constitutions of human societies.</quo te> 12. Because evolution is in many ways an unpredictable event, and we've (we've being the scientific community) already established evolution is true. 13. We realised what was going on with antibiotic resistance, for one. And besides, humans are innately curious about our origins. Evolution answers that curiosity. 14. Because it's SCIENCE: it follows the scientific method. And we can observe what happens in evolution: on a small scale in nature and in the lab, and on a large scale through the fossil record and genetics. 15. Evolution is not a religion. A religion is (remembering from Google) "belief and worship in a supernatural controlling entity". No evolutionist I've heard of worships Darwin or natural selection. Anything else?  (Apr 11, 2012 | post #5)

Evolution Debate

Evolution theory has a huge problem

@OP Thank you for showing us your profound ignorance. I will take it upon myself to explain all this for you. Before I go into that, though, I would like to applaud you for at least admitting that evolution is science as it is falsifiable. This is something most creationists would fear to admit. Now, then, let's see why "X '''can''' be falsified" does not imply "X '''will''' be falsified someday". Let's take the statement "Earth is an oblate spheroid". This is a conceivably falsifiable statement: if you could somehow present evidence that Earth is some other shape, then the "oblate spheroid model" would be falsified. This does NOT imply in any way, shape, or form that it '''will''' be falsified. On the contrary, the oblate spheroidy of Earth has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt, so although it is falsifiable, it will not actually '''be''' falsified. Secondly, you have set up a false dichotomy of "evolution vs. 'creation'". My first question on this is "Okay, which creation?" There are literally an infinite number of conceivable possible versions of a supernatural creation. Meaning that even if evolution was not true, it doesn't mean that '''your''' beliefs on the origin of man are any more accurate than those of some western African tribe that believed the Universe came from ant excrement (Thanks, Dawkins!). There are still other possibilities besides neo-Darwinian theory and divine creation. These include discarded evolutionary theories like Lamarckism, saltationism, et cetera; as well as the unlikely but non-zero possibility (which is actually more likely than any one of the infinite divine creation scenarios) that all the matter in the Universe is simply popping into existence via quantum tunneling and by remarkable chance happens to form in seemingly orderly patterns although it is much more likely everything will degenerate into void every Planck length. This is a highly implausible alternative to evolution, but I would still prefer it to a creation story. Why? There are an infinite number of possible creations, and 1/infinity = 0 (1/2 = 0.5, 1/3 = 0.333..., etc. towards zero), meaning each individual creation event has probability 0. I won't give the statistics for the "chance tunneling" hypothesis: I don't know enough on quantum mechanics to say, but despite 14 billion years, it would be remarkably small but NOT ZERO. Yeah, "chance tunneling" is unfalsifiable, but so is creationism (the "omphalos hypothesis" holds that God made everything look old despite a young universe). There are still many more possible explanations besides these, and I won't go into it now, or probably ever. But evolution in its modern form and your version of creation are not the only two options, and evolution, although falsifiable, won't be falsified anyway any more than the Earth's being an oblate spheroid.  (Apr 11, 2012 | post #6)

Evolution Debate

Any creationists want to debate?

@Kong Thanks for the kudos on my previous work. I would like to clarify that what I mean by "terminate the debate" is simply that if I see a Gish gallop, I will simply point it out as such, say that they've violated the rules of the argument, therefore cheated, therefore lost, therefore I won by default. The topic wouldn't be closed, but I would've won the argument and would be open to another creationist willing to debate.  (Apr 11, 2012 | post #3)

Evolution Debate

god did not create life!!!!!!!

WTF? Listen, I prefer naturalistic explanations to theistic ones, but your argument in particular wasn't very legible, let alone convincing. Firstly, I do not mean to seem like a grammar Nazi, but you might want to learn a bit about basic punctuation, spelling, syntax, and capitalisation before you begin talking. It will make you appear much more sophisticated and not a monkey or a monster hunched over a keyboard. Secondly, it is considered common courtesy on forums to 1) not make one-sentence posts, and 2) not double-post. It only makes you look like a bigger n00b. Rather than just make two short posts in succession, why don't you take the time to read over what you've written before you hit "Send" and make changes/additions if need be? Now, to your actual argument. I have no idea what your miniature rant is supposed to mean. You seem to be presupposing that a god exists, but is some sort of robot or something that appeared sometime in the last four billion years (because that is when the first life appeared). Or, and this is what seems the more believable possibility to me, are you jutting out at biblical literalists on where their beloved Yahveh comes from? Well, I doubt you'll get any responses from creationists on this one: their whole reasoning, by their own admission (look at Answers in Genesis to start) begin with assuming the Bible's already accurate, and they already hold as inerrant truth that God has always existed. If you are genuinely curious about the origin and evolution of the Abrahamic God, I would advise viewing the 15-minute video www.youtube.com/wa tch?v=MlnnWbkMlbg to start you off. Now then, your main argument seems to be a newbish argument from assertion. Now, although I agree with you (if I understand your position correctly) that the Abrahamic God was a human construct and that life long predated its construction, I feel that you really should provide some actual citations and elaborate on your statement. As is, it just makes you individually and reason as a whole look bad by stooping to the creationist's level. I'll give you a few handouts, though, to help you because I feel what you mainly need is some experience and possibly maturity. http://www.explori ngorigins.org provides an excellent insight into the origin of life, and Richard Dawkins' book "The Ancestor's Tale" a wonderful look at pretty much everything relevant to evolution. When you make a claim, you really should provide some citations to avoid coming across as the naked emperor. I'd rather be the little boy than let the honour go to a creationist. Finally, I would like to tell The Dude that he seems to be assuming that by "god", the OP refers to the Abrahamic one (evidenced by linking to the Christian forum). Although it seems reasonable given most creationists are Christian, I have heard of Hindu creationists. I don't know enough about Hinduism to feel confident in commenting on its origin, so I won't provide a link. Besides, Hindu creationism's the minority compared to Abrahamic creationism; hence why I only linked to a guide on the origin of Abrahamic religion: I'm not being hypocritical in this regard. Thank you for reading this.  (Apr 11, 2012 | post #4)

Evolution Debate

Any creationists want to debate?

I want to have a nice clean public debate with a creationist on here. Now, before we get anywhere, I'd like to simply lay the ground rules: 1) I do not want to have to deal with multiple creationists arguing, followed by more Darwinians jumping in on the creationists, both sides perpetuating the cycle that makes the reply count go up but gets me lost sifting through possibly hundreds of posts for my actual target. I would do this in private messages, but a) I want this to be viewable to the public unedited, and b) I've returned here from a months-long hiatus and I don't know any creationists on here off the top of my head. So, if you want to debate me, just post a request, and if I accept it, I'll reply. Sorry, but I can't get overwhelmed as aforementioned! Which brings me to my next point.... 2) Don't shoot out more than one topic at a time. This so-called "debating tactic" of drowning the opponent in straw-men, lies, and gibberish has been named a "Gish gallop" and is very annoying and confusing. One argument may spawn two or more, that's just how debate works. But if I feel you're just spouting wholesale amounts of nonsense, then the debate will be terminated. 3) Please, no ad hominem attacks (arguing the opponent's position is false because of something about the opponent himself, not the actual position); red herrings (bringing up irrelevant points in an attempt to distract me) are also not tolerated. If any of these rules are broken, I'll terminate the discussion, be open to another willing debater, and will have won by default. By agreeing to debate, you agree to follow these rules. Thank you, and I look forward to hearing your arguments.  (Apr 11, 2012 | post #1)

Evolution Debate

we have never seen a new genus emerge

@OP Let's see here.... A genus is an arbitrary category invented by humans for the purpose of their taxonomic system, and nature is under '''no''' obligation to comply. Now, the amount of time it takes for a "genus" to emerge is a bit longer than that of a new species. Given this, it should be fairly obvious why we would need to turn to the fossil record for the evolution of different genera. Looking at hominin evolution, we have genera Ardipithecus, Australopithecus, Paranthropus, and Homo. Take a look at the fossil skulls for yourself and you'll see a nice, smooth transition between the genera. And, as Richard Dawkins points out (p. 13, The Ancestor's Tale), we don't even '''need''' the fossil record to know "macro-evolut ion" is true. There's a lot of evidence supporting common descent. See some for yourself: http://www.rationa lwiki.org/wiki/Com mon_descent  (Apr 11, 2012 | post #11)

Evolution Debate

Any creationists on here?

Citation needed for the ratio being "in favor of...negative mutations". I've never heard anyone say that before. I would also advise you to look at the interactive at http://www.pbs.org /wgbh/nova/evoluti on/evolution-actio n.html. You'll see that, although there would be more negative mutations than positives (color change is random), the population can still adapt. I've even run the simulation, let the yellow creatures dominate the population, then change the background color, and still avoid deaths. This has happened consistently.  (Sep 10, 2011 | post #205)

Evolution Debate

Any creationists on here?

It isn't overrun by negative mutations. Those with negative mutations die out. Since negative mutations are removed, this only leaves positive and neutral mutations. Invalid argument is invalid.  (Sep 7, 2011 | post #142)

Evolution Debate

'No Dinosaurs' doc tangles with creationism

No, it's actually the same as Heaven, but the beer is stale and the strippers have STDs. Wait... this means sects are forming in Pastafarianism! It's only been six years!  (Sep 6, 2011 | post #10)

Evolution Debate

Any creationists on here?

I didn't prepare a backdoor. I began replying to everything you said, but saw that there weren't enough characters left to reply to everything. I saw this as an indication of a Gish Gallop as you made multiple points that weren't very good and it took up all the characters available and then some to reply to each point. Also, there *are* some things I could imagine that would convince me that evolution is invalid: A time machine that can go into the past. If I can go back to the year 4004 BC and see the Universe being created, that would be as close to irrefutable evidence as we could get. A Cambrian chicken or humans and dinosaurs existing in the same time period. Such anachronisms would be predicted by evolution not to exist, so their appearance would falsify evolution. An actual crocoduck or some other chimera that evolution would predict not to exist, e.g. centaurs, harpies, etc. These are just the things that I could think of off the top of my head. I don't see how this answer is really lacking. Are you asking for the actual species which first evolved the ability to learn? Well, we don't know exactly what, but we know how. Let's go back to our bacteria with nylonase. We know how the ability to eat nylonase emerged, but we don't know for sure which bacterium first gained the ability to eat nylon. This doesn't discredit the fact that nylonase was able to, and did evolve.  (Sep 6, 2011 | post #122)

Evolution Debate

Any creationists on here?

I'm now seeing this is just a form of the "genetic information can't increase" argument. Well, this has been demonstrated to be false. New genes can emerge due to a mutation known as gene duplication (a gene is accidentally copied twice). Each of these two genes then gather their own different mutations over time, until they each code for two entirely different proteins. We've seen this occur in the nylonase experiment, and there is no distinction between artificial and natural selection except for who or what determines the environmental pressures. Summary: Some mutations can produce more than one copy of a gene. These copies then change in different ways, until they make two totally different proteins. In this way, mutations can produce new genetic information.  (Sep 6, 2011 | post #121)

Evolution Debate

Any creationists on here?

@humble brother I can't do that, I'm sorry. I have a feeling that, if I do that, you may continue the Gish Gallop until I'm drowning in a sea of straw men and manure. I have a strict policy of having only one policy being discussed at a time. Please view the image at http://atheistatla rge.org/articles/u ploads/2010/12/Deb ate-Flow-Chart.jpg to view my debate policy. Your continued discussion with me means you agree to abide and be legally bound by these rules in this discussion with me. I want to avoid a Gish Gallop, because they waste everyone's time and are annoying. By the way, the message from AaB came in regarding how the ability to learn emerged15th Dalai I pronounce it "Gish Gullup" for some reason.  (Sep 5, 2011 | post #111)

Evolution Debate

Any creationists on here?

I'm sorry, I really am. I was planning on responding to all this, but there weren't enough characters left to do so. When there are too few characters left for me to give a good response to each of your arguments, it is an indication of a Gish Gallop. Look that up if you're not sure. I would like you to choose, out of all those arguments you present in the quoted post, which one you feel is best. Give it to me individually, and I will do my best to respond.  (Sep 5, 2011 | post #106)

Evolution Debate

Any creationists on here?

Yes, they are. The definition of "domesticate " (of which "domesticated " is past tense of) is "[to] tame (an animal) and keep it as a pet or for farm produce". Farm animals are domesticated. (Definition from Google Dictionary.)  (Sep 3, 2011 | post #94)

Q & A with Heidelberg Kid

Hometown:

Earth

I Believe In:

Man's ability to do incredible things. Unfortunately, I see this ability squandered and misused by many others.