Jump to content


Photo

25 Common Misconceptions About Evolution


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
142 replies to this topic

#41 Codex

Codex

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 51 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • New York

Posted 04 May 2012 - 12:42 PM

Evolution occurs whenever a species is not in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (http://en.wikipedia....nberg_principle). It is thought that HWE is an impossibility in nature, therefore it is thought that evolution is constantly occuring. It may be the case that the population is very fit for the environment so actual significant change to the structure of the organisms may stagnate, but inheritance, variation, and selection occur constantly, which is evolution. I'm not familiar with the idea that evolution "stops" (other than through extinction), I don't know any evolutionist who thinks this as it violates the Hardy-Weinberg principle.
  • menes777 likes this

#42 Codex

Codex

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 51 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • New York

Posted 04 May 2012 - 12:44 PM

For the record, I don't think you know what my worldview is, as we have only exchanged a few sentences with each other. Please try not to be pressumptuous.
  • menes777 likes this

#43 rico

rico

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 669 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Jesus, computers, physics, video games, philosophy, epistomology
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • USA

Posted 04 May 2012 - 01:13 PM

For the record, I don't think you know what my worldview is, as we have only exchanged a few sentences with each other. Please try not to be pressumptuous.

Excuse me that wasn't fair... I used to have different view's about creation, I saw the Trex dna/red blood cells and it made me question them. I'm a biblical protestant YEC now, but I don't think God can be bribed (Dueteronomy verse). I prefer to think of myself as nonreligeous, since Jesus saves. Laws and grace work together in a relationship. Welcome to the forum. Thanks for your time.

#44 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 04 May 2012 - 06:01 PM

1. I wouldn’t call eugenics a “modern” stance given that most (if not all) modern evolutionists are very much opposed to it.




2. I am not attempting to cover up the history of evolution. I have no problem whatsoever with creationists bringing up historical events, as long as they are being presented in a historical context. The problem arises when creationists use examples from 100 years ago to argue that modern evolution is based on racism.



3. That’s not the logical conclusion. It seems as though you misunderstand the difference between artificial selection and natural selection, so I will try to explain.

4. An adaptation is a trait that comes about through natural selection because it increases the reproductive success of the organism. There is no need to breed for adaptations, because that’s what natural selection is actively doing: the organisms that produce less offspring (ie. are less fit) contribute fewer genes to future generations. In contrast, artificial selection is not about selecting adaptations, but rather selecting traits that make plants or animals more useful to humans. When we artificially select traits, it’s not a means of speeding up the process of natural selection. In many cases artificial selection directly counteracts the process of natural selection by producing traits that would be extremely disadvantageous in nature. For example, plants with smaller and fewer seeds have been artificially selected because they’re easier to eat, but a plant in the wild with less seeds would be at a severe disadvantage because they would have a lower fitness. Thus artificial selection is arbitrary in the sense that the ultimate outcome is based on the subjective wants or needs of an individual, not on what is most adaptive for a particular environment.

5. Artificial selection is fine when applied to commodities like corn or livestock, but humans are not a commodity that can be sold and consumed. No one should have the authority to decide that some humans are superior to others just because they have a particular hair colour or skin colour. Such a decision has no scientific basis, and would not “improve” human populations in any way. Just because the process of artificial selection can in theory be applied to humans, that does not mean it should be. Evolution does not suggest that human rights and freedoms are insignificant, nor does it undermine the importance of ethics in science. Even today, there are strict ethical guidelines scientists must adhere to when working with humans or other animals.

6. Lastly, I’d like to point out that artificial selection is not an idea that was introduced by Darwin.

7. Artificial selection for certain plant and animal traits has been going on for thousands of years, long before the theory of evolution was developed. Evolutionists simply provided a name and scientific explanation for artificial selection, but they did not invent the process. Nor did evolutionists invent the concept of racial superiority. I would argue that while Darwin’s writing on evolution may have been used to (incorrectly) justify eugenics, the much more influential factor was the formation of the British Empire and subsequent attempts at empire formation by other nations. Eugenics is politically motivated, not scientifically motivated. I suspect the proponents of eugenics would have held their beliefs of racial superiority whether or not the theory of evolution was ever developed.


1. I was saying that in that it came about after Darwin,

2. Yes you are, softening the blow is the same thing. I am not talking about what evolutionists do today. I am talking about what evolution itself implies. Obviously you didn't read this.....

"This isn't to say that modern scientists agree or practice the notion of Eugenics, I am merely pointing out the logical conclusion if you extend evolution out far enough. When life becomes an account book and lives are just numbers giving different "fitness" values."


3. No it is a logical conclusion and it has nothing to do with the differences of natural selection and artificial selection. I merely stated that if you believe that in nature things get better and bad traits are downplayed via a selective mating, then the same idea can be believed to work for humans too, in the form of neutering those people believed to have negative traits.. The poor, sick, etc. Your attempts at misrepresentation here are not appreciated.

4. And? How does that have anything to do with what I said?

5. And? As I said I am not talking about what people do, I am talking about what evolution dogma implies. Just because in this day and age evolutionists have tempered the evolution dogma with compassion doesn't change what evolution represents when those compassion restraints are removed. Evolution leads to Eugenics, you cannot deny this.

As I said

"When you have evolution which claims that traits are hereditary and that the organisms with the most well adapted / useful traits survive better, this leads to a reduction in not as useful traits

and

that circumventing human breeding will allow for the faster accumulation of useful traits and lessen the accumulation of not as useful traits



It doesn't take a rocket scientists to see that the later stems from the ideas of the former.

This isn't to say that modern scientists agree or practice the notion of Eugenics, I am merely pointing out the logical conclusion if you extend evolution out far enough. When life becomes an account book and lives are just numbers giving different "fitness" values."


6. I never said it was?

7. Eugenics on people with disabilities IS scientifically motivated, the racial one not so much.

#45 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 04 May 2012 - 06:06 PM

Evolution occurs whenever a species is not in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (http://en.wikipedia....nberg_principle). It is thought that HWE is an impossibility in nature, therefore it is thought that evolution is constantly occuring. It may be the case that the population is very fit for the environment so actual significant change to the structure of the organisms may stagnate, but inheritance, variation, and selection occur constantly, which is evolution. I'm not familiar with the idea that evolution "stops" (other than through extinction), I don't know any evolutionist who thinks this as it violates the Hardy-Weinberg principle.


Hardy Weingberg principle assumes


1- random mating
2- mutations are not occuring
3- large population size
4- no selection
5- no overlapping generations
6- no geneflow from other populations

Please tell of a situation where all these exist

#46 Tubal

Tubal

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 69 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Massachusetts

Posted 04 May 2012 - 06:22 PM

Excuse me that wasn't fair... I used to have different view's about creation, I saw the Trex dna/red blood cells and it made me question them. I'm a biblical protestant YEC now, but I don't think God can be bribed (Dueteronomy verse). I prefer to think of myself as nonreligeous, since Jesus saves. Laws and grace work together in a relationship. Welcome to the forum. Thanks for your time.


I'm glad to see you understand that the law and grace work together in the relationship with God but I'd like to suggest that yes you are religious. You accept that Jesus is the son of God, that he died for us and that God created through him. You are a based on the Bible and the Bible alone. You are a Christian :)
Just because you don't like to go to church to get together with people of similar beliefs does not mean you are not religious.

#47 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 04 May 2012 - 10:30 PM

Religion has become somewhat of a bad word in this culture, but I don't agree that we are not religious. The truth is that we are not elevating traditions of man over a relationship with God, that is what is important. This religious or not religious thing is semantic preference.

#48 rico

rico

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 669 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Jesus, computers, physics, video games, philosophy, epistomology
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • USA

Posted 05 May 2012 - 10:28 AM

I'm glad to see you understand that the law and grace work together in the relationship with God but I'd like to suggest that yes you are religious. You accept that Jesus is the son of God, that he died for us and that God created through him. You are a based on the Bible and the Bible alone. You are a Christian :)
Just because you don't like to go to church to get together with people of similar beliefs does not mean you are not religious.

I do go, and your right, I'd start a new thread maybe in the Christian discussion forum; my mind keeps going to How can we please God and Hebrews 11:6 KJV...
6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
Maybe someone could start up a 25 misconceptions about Christianity in the debate section

On topic thanks for the clarification about the HW principle Gilbo, I couldn't understand it.

#49 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 05 May 2012 - 04:57 PM

I do go, and your right, I'd start a new thread maybe in the Christian discussion forum; my mind keeps going to How can we please God and Hebrews 11:6 KJV...
6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
Maybe someone could start up a 25 misconceptions about Christianity in the debate section

On topic thanks for the clarification about the HW principle Gilbo, I couldn't understand it.


No problem, though I should expand a bit more into it.

We did it as part of a 1st year practical in Biology.

Basically it is used to study the differences of change in allele frequency within a population over time... (This is how my text book described it, yet our practical was comparing the same data set to itself which I think is totally wrong!!)

(p2) + (2pq) + (q2) = 1

Where
p is the dominant allele
q is the recessive allele

These numbers are derived from a punnet square


Using the punnet square formulation for 2 alleles, we can see that the frequency of q is equal to the amount of recessive individuals, the amount of q in pq can be worked out thus p can be worked out too. Now this is based on the assumption that this frequency is correct. The only confirmation of this is to test each and every individual of the dominant features ( p and pq), since either will look the same due to the dominance of the p allele.

Now once you have your reading for a population with the p and q values you use those values for the equation again comparing it to the same population but a few years later. Any changes means there is a deviation from the original allele frequency. However all this assumes the things I mentioned in the earlier post, which can never fully occur anyway so this reading should be taken with a grain of salt.

To clarify my practical was using the p and q values we obtained from a data set.... on the same data set from where they were derived. Meaning nothing would have changed since its the same data, I asked them about this and was told off. Yet I did some research in the text book and it describes it where the p and q values are compared to the same population at a later date.

#50 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 08 May 2012 - 01:12 PM

As most of you probably know, a straw man argument involves misrepresenting your opponent’s position and refuting the misrepresentation. One of the best ways to avoid an unintentional straw man argument is to fully understand your opponent’s viewpoint; this holds true for evolutionists and creationists alike. I enjoy posting here because the creationists on this site are well-educated when it comes to evolutionary concepts, but I’ve noticed that there are still a great deal of misconceptions out there. I have compiled this list based my experiences on this forum and in everyday life. My aim here is not to start a debate, but if you feel that any of the below points have been wrongly labelled as false I would like to hear your reasoning.

If you would like me to elaborate on any of the following, please let me know and I will be happy to do so. I purposely limited my explanations to a sentence or two, but in most cases there is a lot more I can say on the subject.


24. Evolution cannot be falsified.
False. There are plenty of discoveries that could falsify or dramatically alter our current understanding of evolution.

Evolution as it is defended today cannot be falsified. This is because it is assumed that intelligent design is non-existent. Therefore, all impossibilities to evolution are considered only to represent gaps in man's knowledge. Case in point: Abiogenesis is scientifically impossible. However, Darwinists assume that man's inability to explain it indicates that we don't understand the mechanisms as to how it operates. ANY impossibility to evolution can be rationalized away in this manner.
  • Hawkins, gilbo12345 and JayShel like this

#51 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 13 May 2012 - 07:04 AM

Evolution as it is defended today cannot be falsified. This is because it is assumed that intelligent design is non-existent. Therefore, all impossibilities to evolution are considered only to represent gaps in man's knowledge. Case in point: Abiogenesis is scientifically impossible. However, Darwinists assume that man's inability to explain it indicates that we don't understand the mechanisms as to how it operates. ANY impossibility to evolution can be rationalized away in this manner.


Exactly!!!

To the evolutionist what seems impossible is only improbable and over "millions of years" there is enough time for these "improbable" events to occur.

#52 rico

rico

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 669 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Jesus, computers, physics, video games, philosophy, epistomology
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • USA

Posted 14 May 2012 - 07:57 AM

Evolution as it is defended today cannot be falsified. This is because it is assumed that intelligent design is non-existent. Therefore, all impossibilities to evolution are considered only to represent gaps in man's knowledge. Case in point: Abiogenesis is scientifically impossible. However, Darwinists assume that man's inability to explain it indicates that we don't understand the mechanisms as to how it operates. ANY impossibility to evolution can be rationalized away in this manner.


The so called "missing link" is spiritual... Know Jesus. There is no physical missing link. darwinian evolution in the physical is not knowable...

#53 joman

joman

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 58 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Southern Indiana

Posted 21 May 2012 - 10:03 PM

I don’t think misunderstandings about the possibilities of macro-evolutionary change occuring by chance, is avoidable, since, chance by definition produces no trends. I mean to say that, if any notion relies on chance, then to that degree rational thought is voided. (the notion that, “God did it” presents a qualitative expectation of numerous evidences of wisdom, purpose, and thus, rationality being notable, but, 'chance' presents only valueless, qualitatively empty notion that, if “ No one did it” there can be no expectations whatsoever)

And so, with the notion of chance the door is wide and open for every sort of vanity of philosophy. Thus, confusion and misunderstanding must be expected to proliferate endlessly amid the great amounts of imprecision and arbitrariness that comes with the lack of rigor that is always inherent in unrestrained subjectivity.

In utter contrast to any notion of luck, I find that life always exhibits energetic opposition to chance. Which is why life always suggests purpose.

I go as far as to say, that the scientific definitive definition of life, is…Life is that energy that resists chance.

Even macro-evolutionists, unwittingly I suspect, collectively rely on selection, thereby, proving to admit that chance in nature must be overcome somehow.

And, I note that selection in the context of reproduction manifests the effective use of superlative judgments based on precise and appropriate criteria.

How is a judgment produced by chance? That is, for example, females judging the appropriateness of possible mates. The act is purposeful.

Is there any instinct that has no purpose? Not that I know of. If chance produced instinct there would exist instincts that are utterly unrelatable to any rationale.

Therefore, I think that all macro-evolutionary thinking causes confusion and misunderstanding because of two particular reasons…

1) In that notions of chance as a means of explaination is in direct opposition to scientific thought, and/or inquiry.

2) In that any notion of chance promotes the arbitrariness of subjectivity in use of terms, and storylines.
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#54 Hawkins

Hawkins

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 159 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Hong Kong

Posted 25 May 2012 - 10:00 AM

Evolution as it is defended today cannot be falsified. This is because it is assumed that intelligent design is non-existent. Therefore, all impossibilities to evolution are considered only to represent gaps in man's knowledge. Case in point: Abiogenesis is scientifically impossible. However, Darwinists assume that man's inability to explain it indicates that we don't understand the mechanisms as to how it operates. ANY impossibility to evolution can be rationalized away in this manner.


Fasifiability refers to the allowance of any third party to make observation on any species to deliver the same predicted result.

For example, when it is claimed that water will disolve into oxygen and hydrogen. Anyone can choose water from any where even Mars and Neptune to do the experiment to get to the same result. If he finally found out that certain water doesn't actually resolve into oxygen and hydrogen or water that even refuse to resolve, then the scientific conclusion that "water will disolve into oxygen and hydrogen" is considered falsified. In this case, you have to work out under what circumstances water doesn't behave as predicted such that those circumstances will be excluded in your theory to say that "water will disolve into oxygen and hydrogen" still works iunder a pyradigm with those circumstances excluded.

Similarly, if ToE stands it will allow you to choose any species you know of to observe how that species evolves from a single cell (or any simplest life form ToE declares on which the origin of species started).

The problem of ToE is that it generalise the saying "evolution occurred" but never specifies from what to what to allow it to be falsified. And it nevre allows a third party to arbitrarily choose any species to observe how it changes from a single cell (they never specify this part to subject the case to falsifiability) to that species. They just simply throw out the empty generalization that "evolution occurred", with the so-called "evidence" which never shows how the species evolves from a single cell.
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#55 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 25 May 2012 - 06:55 PM

Evolution occurs whenever a species is not in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (http://en.wikipedia....nberg_principle). It is thought that HWE is an impossibility in nature, therefore it is thought that evolution is constantly occuring. It may be the case that the population is very fit for the environment so actual significant change to the structure of the organisms may stagnate, but inheritance, variation, and selection occur constantly, which is evolution. I'm not familiar with the idea that evolution "stops" (other than through extinction), I don't know any evolutionist who thinks this as it violates the Hardy-Weinberg principle.


Wrong!

Since the HW principle only deals with the variation of existing alleles and not the creation of new ones.

By the explanation here changes in hair / eye colour would be "evolution"

For example there is a population of 50% red heads and 50% blonde... when this population changes to 75% blonde and 25% red, using this claim, it can be said that this population has "evolved". Now is this conclusion logical? Do we base a different species on the colour of its fur / hair / skin / eyes..... No so why would changes of that type be claimed to be evolution? Further, why would such changes be evidence of the larger changes that create new genes genes / function / limbs etc.

Even if we allowed the creation of a new allele... so its like 60% blonde, 20% red and 20% black, it STILL doesn't create a new species... It's merely a colour change, the basic body plan of the organism remains the same, and that is what is used when classing organisms via phenotype.

Again this is a case of evolutionists attempting to compare apples to oranges.

#56 joman

joman

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 58 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Southern Indiana

Posted 26 May 2012 - 07:54 AM

Wrong!

Since the HW principle only deals with the variation of existing alleles and not the creation of new ones.

By the explanation here changes in hair / eye colour would be "evolution"

For example there is a population of 50% red heads and 50% blonde... when this population changes to 75% blonde and 25% red, using this claim, it can be said that this population has "evolved". Now is this conclusion logical? Do we base a different species on the colour of its fur / hair / skin / eyes..... No so why would changes of that type be claimed to be evolution? Further, why would such changes be evidence of the larger changes that create new genes genes / function / limbs etc.

Even if we allowed the creation of a new allele... so its like 60% blonde, 20% red and 20% black, it STILL doesn't create a new species... It's merely a colour change, the basic body plan of the organism remains the same, and that is what is used when classing organisms via phenotype.

Again this is a case of evolutionists attempting to compare apples to oranges.

This exemplifies one of the chief misconceptions about what we call casually...evolution.

The reason the casual use of the word "evolution" is used by evolutionists, it think, is to promote confusion and misconceptions, Basically a shell game.
This is why we should be careful to speak directly of 'macroevolution' and not of 'evolution', unless a common sense approach is agreed on in discussion. Which is not often the case in evolution debate in my experience.

So, instead of presenting misconcptions about evolution it would be better to simplify by presenting what it actually is, seems to me.

Here is my take on it.

Evolutionists believe that commonly known, indisputible proofs of change among all creatures, can, and should be, logically extrapolated to allow certainty in expectation, that, over great enough era/eras of immense time, commonplace changes can result in a exhibits of macroevolutionary change.

Thus, we seee a strong bias can exist among evolutionists concerning any recognition of a young cosmos among scientists, or the masses.

However, they would argue that they aren'tat all biased, but only having reached a firm conclusion about the scientific validity of great and ancient spans of time due to measurements using modern day technologies.
Regardless, macroevolution can be falsified by evidences of a short cosmological history.

The result is a situation where only interpretation of data is afforded all sides of the debate.
However, evolutionists argue that there can be no further logical debate due to their perception of ceratin data as conclusively proving macoevolution must have taken place somehow.

My arguments are essentially based on the odd truth that, all that can be experimentally proven by valid and repeatable scientifc methodology refutes any notion of macroevolution as fanciful. Instead all real science (that is beyond dispute) logically suggests a intelligent, powerful, careful creator who is interested in his experiment results afforded by the parameters of his creation data set. Thus, that is why he declared his creation good, and not, holy.
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#57 Richw9090

Richw9090

    BANNED

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Tucson

Posted 27 May 2012 - 10:19 PM

Isabella, nice OP and well supported followups.

Rich
  • menes777 likes this

#58 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 29 May 2012 - 04:43 AM

Isabella, nice OP and well supported followups.

Rich


Actually it was NOT well supported at all:



25 Common Misconceptions about Evolution:
1. Humans evolved from chimpanzees.
False. According to evolution, humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor that was neither a human nor a chimpanzee.
2. Some organisms are “lower” or “less-evolved”.
False. All living organisms have been evolving for the same amount of time, and thus are equally “evolved”.
6. Humans represent the end product of evolution.
False. If anything, humans demonstrate that intelligence is an extremely powerful adaptation.


Just to insure there is no misunderstanding, ALL THREE of the above rebuttals are misconceptions FOR (i.e. in favor of) evolution. Further, attempting to promulgate macroevolution as anything but hypothetical is not only disingenuous, but a flagrant violation of forum rules as well.

First - There is absolutely NO empirical evidence adduced to provide that man and chimpanzees (or any other ape, gorilla etc...) share commonality of lineage. And it is "intellectually dishonest" to claim there is.

Second - There is absolutely NO empirical evidence adduced to provide that ANY living organism has macro-evolved at all, therefore it is "intellectually dishonest" to make such a claim.

Third - There is absolutely NO empirical evidence adduced to provide that humans have provided anything other than intelligence; further, there is absolutely NO empirical evidence adduced to provide intelligence as not having ALWAYS been a human trait; AND there is absolutely NO empirical evidence adduced to provide that intelligence "evolved" from non-intelligence. Therefore it is "intellectually dishonest" to claim intelligence adapted from anything else (powerfully or not).

Consider this a warning…


It is fellacious at best, and not very well thought out...

#59 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,205 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 21 July 2012 - 03:36 PM

I would just like to respond to some of your statments about evo.

1. Humans evolved from chimpanzees.
False. According to evolution, humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor that was neither a human nor a chimpanzee

Technically your conclusion is false. Humans, according to evolution evovled from an orginal cell leading to multi paths (the tree of life with all its branches). What is the name of the common ancestor? The history of evolution goes back 3.8 billion years allegedly.

The common ancestor had to be fit to reproduce so why are chimps arround but "our" common ancestor seemingly non existent today? How did our alleged common ancestor suddenly become unfit and therefore leave no gradual trancision individuals?

Social Darwinism does not stem from the root of evolution, but rather from a misunderstanding of evolution. Social Darwinists completely redefined terms like “natural selection” and “fitness”, and then applied them to a non-biological context. I’m not attempting to ignore Social Darwinism, but I want to make it absolutely clear that it is not the same thing as biological evolution, and it does not reflect the views of evolutionists today.

Wow! I heard everythig stems from evolution. According to evo's materialistic headset nothing exists that is not derived from the process of evolution. How can evolution misunderstand itself? You are saying that people can be above their biology. How is that possible?

3. Evolution results in increased complexity.
False. It certainly can, but complexity is not always advantageous and sometimes simple traits are favoured.

The raw ingedient of life is allegedly matter which is energy in a 'solid' state. Evolution would therefore have to increase complexity from raw ingredient levels. Thus simple traits are not simple but complex.

6. Humans represent the end product of evolution.
False. If anything, humans demonstrate that intelligence is an extremely powerful adaptation.

Of course not. Evo is allegdly going on now. On the other hand the human mind body configuration is the most complicated mechanm in the known universe. I mean give evo credit for that accomplishment.

2. Some organisms are “lower” or “less-evolved”.
False. All living organisms have been evolving for the same amount of time, and thus are equally “evolved”.

What? Surely this is a typo. What about geological strata? Humans and lots of creatures did did not exist three billion years ago.

20. Evolution promotes racism.
False. Evolution actually promotes racial equality by suggesting that all humans shared a common ancestor and have been evolving for the same amount of time.

Your assumption is that we are capable of being above evolution--that we can be seperated from it which would imply creativity.and that evolution is not responsible for what it allegedly caused-us and all tht we think. Arent't you acting as an agent of evolution implying that creationists are unfit? Aren't you trying to cause us to evolve to the corect view which is that evolution created everything? This seems to be contradictory as if evolution can be both untrue and valid at the same time.

#60 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,172 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 22 July 2012 - 10:25 AM

As most of you probably know, a straw man argument involves misrepresenting your opponent’s position and refuting the misrepresentation. One of the best ways to ave...
1. Humans evolved from chimpanzees.
False. According to evolution, humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor that was neither a human nor a chimpanzee.
...

Except that I never heard a critique of evolution insinuating this to be the position, this opens some other question.

Who would this hypothetical ancestor then be. What is his taxonomic name and what is the prove that he exists? And yes, wouldn't he be an ape as well?


2. Some organisms are “lower” or “less-evolved”.
False. All living organisms have been evolving for the same amount of time, and thus are equally “evolved”.
...

... Not really true. Even in the evolutionary model it won't be the clocked time that counts, but the number of reproductions. And given that statement one would have to ask:
Where there any non-human ancestors of humans that were "less-evolved" or "lower" then humans?

The other issues one can also look into. There seem to be some interesting logical problems with the statements that are of interest to understand, what's going on here.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users