Ritter315 said:
Alleged_Alec: "why this guy fails at (evolutionary) biology forever" - Ignoring the obvious childishness in that statement.
One thing first: when quoting, it's rather handy to actually use the quote button. I actually know to respond then.
And yes, it was rather childish. It's just that I get very sick of this 'debate'.
"One: that's not what the theory of evolution says" - So the theory of evolution does NOT say that envirnmental differences lead to adaptation? Yes it does. Its part of survival, its what allows for more mutations and biological changes is what drives evolution in the first place.
Evolution says very little about species becoming a more complex organism. Simple can be just as good.
"Two: why would a moth turn into a bee or a bird?" - I mean to imply any more complex organism than a moth. obviously I didnt mean literally a bee or a bird, just a higher form of life.
But complex isn't the same as having a better (inclusive) fitness in the current ecosystem.
"Three: The word 'turned' implies a short amount of time." -Again, I didnt think anyone would take hat literally. I mean to say that no envirnmental changes which has forced organisms to adapt have ever caused real evolution, evolving into a higher form of life.
I've seen very stupid quotes in this sort of discussions. I tend to take stuff literally because often times, people do mean it literally.
"According to the evolutionary timeline it took about 800 million years from the first prokaryotic lifeforms to cyanobactiera" - This sort of proves my point that evolution HAS NOT been observed yet.
Which, as was my point, is a rubbish argument. We haven't observed the entire life cycle of a star, but that doesn't make theories and hypotheses about them any less valid.
But my main point is that we havnt even seen ANY changes in bacteria which would suggest that it is evolving over the last 200 years.
But we have. We've seen bacteria 'develop' new mechanisms to defend themselves against antibiotics, for example and there are many more of these examples.
You're saying that there are no visible signs of evolution besides envirnmental adaptation? If so, than it furthers my point what we have no observed evolution.
What kind of visible signs would you like to see?
"So no, you won't see these bacteria grow legs and walk out of the lab in 200 years. Just the idea of it is laughable, and shows that you know very little of the subject." - Yes it would be quie laughable, assuming thats what I said, which I didnt...like AT ALL. I'd enjoy it if you read my arguements and not filled in spaces with your own commentry to try and insult my points if you would. I never suggested that, and there is no way from reading what I posted would you get that assumption.
I was exaggerating, but I do hope you get my point. It's somewhat silly to expect them to suddenly for colonies or even become multicellular organisms when there is no selection pressure for them to do so.
"Apart from that: only under the best of circumstances can these bacteria have generation times of 20 minutes. In nature it takes about thrice that time." - Good, than we should be seeing evolution in less time shouldnt we? Again, this kind of furthers my point.
With that I meant a generation time of 20 minutes in the lab and 60 in a more usual environment.
"And you can't. It's not that I believe that these people are inferior or stupid (though it's likely)" - Thought its likely, I apperciate that. Doesnt that sort of prove that you DO believe that your intellectual opponents are inferior? Its kind of a slap-dash way of hiding your thoughts about the issue isnt it?
Many of the people who do not accept evolution are doing so for a simple reason: they fail to educate themselves on the subject. When these people then start debating a subject they know nothing about, yes, they are rather stupid.
"And I treat them with very little respect because they try to force their ideas onto the minds of children." - I've never understood this arguement. Politics, religion, ethnic background is RARELY FORCED upon children. In fact, forcig ideas is usually a good way to make sure that a child will NOT belive those ideas. This arguement has never held much water for me and to me is a bit like the old "ITS FOR THE CHILDREN" emotional rhetoric, which is all that really is, emotional rhetoric.
Then what would you name tactics like 'teach the controversy', when there is none. And yes, those things are forced upon children, though 'forced' maybe a quite strong word to use. Children take over their parents' believes and ideologies.
"Their tactics are trying to undermine the theory of evolution using false arguments, made up facts and name-calling" -The first two I can understand, but I've seen more of the second by evolutionists...this discussion is a good example.
I think you mean name-calling there? I admit that that would be true. Made-up facts? Not so much.
Also, I've rarely seen the first two from ID advocates or Creationists.
I'd like you to read the 'wedge documents'. It shows the intellectual dishonesty in the ID movement.
Also, undermining the opponents arguement is usually half the battle in a debate.
Except when it's done through fallacious arguments, intellectual dishonesty and misrepresentation or even made up facts.
"Not much to say on this. I don't live in the USA" - I live in the USA and my family is Mexico, I've rarely seen ID or Creationism presented in positive ways, especially in schools.
Because, imho, they shouldn't be. They are a blight upon this planet, hoping to distort the public's image.
".... Derp...." - Indeed. "Evolution says nothing on how life started" - Naturalistic explaination is what I was refering to. Evolution is merely the end chapter of how life begain, How life grew.
Which has nothing to do with evolution, and therefore has no place in this debate.
EDIT: What I'm also noticing is how you first say that adapting to your environment is indeed evolution, but later point out that we have never seen something evolve. You even brought up those moths yourself.
EDIT2:
samonix said:
Evolution is scientific theory because there is no proof for it, so saying one is right and one is wrong just makes you equally as ignorant.
Evolution is a scientific theory because there is (quite a lot of) evidence for it. If there wasn't, it would be a hypothesis. Which is what you mean when you say theory.
Evolution has some evidence and Creationism does too, both have huge holes in them to prevent either one being proven. For example, Humans were either created by God or evolved from some unknown 'missing link'. Neither are exactly viable.
Point me to a big hole in evolution, if you will. I think you'll be hard-pressed to find more than two or three. There are indeed some minor points which are not yet adequately explained, but that's science: it changes its theories to make them more accurate.
