Jump to content


Photo

25 Common Misconceptions About Evolution


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

#21 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 05 April 2012 - 01:23 PM

You're point 5 is mimicking what Darwin said in that his theory breaks down if something irreducibly complex was discovered. I am here to tell you that we have already discovered it.


See number 16 on my list. Not everything Darwin wrote is accepted by evolutionists today.

And that is their assumption that there MUST have been a precursor to a function, but this begs the question... what was the precursor before the precursor. There is always an origin.

In terms of the first cell, there is agreement that there was a minimum standard of requirements. For example a cell cannot exist without the mechanism of transcription and translation being operational, (as well as other systems). Transcription and translation require many different parts, hence in order for the function to be utilised these parts must have existed... An experiment to test this could be to have cells with all their helicase genes removed. Or how about the genes coding for polymerase, or what about ligase... I am sure if you had a cell with one of these components missing it would die.


Models of protocells suggest that RNA preceded DNA. This is backed up by research demonstrating that RNA can serve as both a template and a replication enzyme. Furthermore, empirical studies show that RNAs can undergo selection, influence cell membrane permeability, exhibit heritable differences in reproductive success, and take on new enzymatic functions as a result of sequence mutations (see the articles I have linked below for more information). Therefore, primitive cells may not have required transcription and translation. Instead, they may have depended exclusively on RNA.

http://www.nature.co...df/409387a0.pdf
http://www.nature.co...s/382373a0.html
http://www.sciencema...nt/289/5478/448
http://www.pnas.org/...pe2=tf_ipsecsha

Compounding this are the systems that require other systems or parts in order to be functional at all. In terms of cellular respiration glycolysis requires the citric acid cycle in order to dispose of its product, (since a build up of its product- pyruvate will lead to a pH change eventually killing the cell... It also leads to a slowdown and eventual stop in the system). Whereas the electron transport chain requires the citric acid cycle and glycolysis to supply NADH and FADH2, which in turn replenishes NAD and FAD to be re-used... (if these are not replenished the system stops automatically).


What if there were redundant biochemical reactions in the cell? The reactions of the citric acid cycle may be the most efficient series of reactions, but like most chemical processes there are multiple ways to get from point A to point B. Evolution does not suggest that the citric acid cycle evolved step-by-step in an organism that was already dependent on it... that would be impossible, and we are aware of that. It could, however, evolve step-by-step if other enzymes and reactions existed that are no longer present in cells today. Furthermore, primitive cells may not have required the full set of reactions that cells today depend on.

Now what this means is that celluar respiration cannot come about via a bit-by-bit method that Darwin proposes, hence just as he says his theory falls apart. Yet what do evolutionists do? I haven't seen anyone investigating how cellular respiration "evolved" hence my claim stands that the evidence against evolution is ignored, (or if it is addressed it hasn't been given much attention, downplaying the problems I guess)


When you say that it hasn’t been given much attention, what sort of attention are you referring to? Just because there hasn’t been a PBS special devoted to the evolution of cellular respiration, doesn’t mean the research isn’t out there. I did a quick search on Google Scholar and got quite a few results.
  • menes777 likes this

#22 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 05 April 2012 - 02:59 PM

18. Gaps or uncertainties in the fossil record present a serious problem for evolution.
False. Fossil formation, fossil preservation, and fossil discovery are all low-probability events. Gaps in the fossil record are expected.


What is ironic is that evolutionists criticise creationism for having gaps even though acknowledging that fossils don't form easily.

If a general lack of transitionary fossils does not disprove evolution, does a general lack of mammal fossils in a wetlands carboniferous world disprove creation? As you indicate, we wouldn't actually expect those animals restricted to rare enclaves of dry environment in a wetlands world to actually fossilise.

What is also ironic is that evolutionists speak of the Siberian basalt flooding of continental proportions and yet if you look at a map of the latitudes of that region during the carboniferous, this is the very region that would most likely have been suitable for mammal and human settlement during the Carboniferous period. Surely this is where we would find human and mammal fossils, under the basalt of Russia?

An additional point, there was the sudden appearance of higher life-forms during the Cambrian explosion; and there is a lack of proof that mutational increases to the genome length do have a positive influence on organisms. Surely just these two points are sufficient logic to lead scientists to regard creationism as an equally viable hypothesis? Why the fixation on evolution to explain the geologic column when its only an unproven mental projection that organisms have beneficiary increases to the genome length? These are just some thoughts for you to ponder on as I'm emphasizing that evolution is merely a hypothesis , nothing more.

#23 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 April 2012 - 06:48 PM

1. See number 16 on my list. Not everything Darwin wrote is accepted by evolutionists today.



2. Models of protocells suggest that RNA preceded DNA. This is backed up by research demonstrating that RNA can serve as both a template and a replication enzyme. Furthermore, empirical studies show that RNAs can undergo selection, influence cell membrane permeability, exhibit heritable differences in reproductive success, and take on new enzymatic functions as a result of sequence mutations (see the articles I have linked below for more information). Therefore, primitive cells may not have required transcription and translation. Instead, they may have depended exclusively on RNA.

http://www.nature.co...df/409387a0.pdf
http://www.nature.co...s/382373a0.html
http://www.sciencema...nt/289/5478/448
http://www.pnas.org/...pe2=tf_ipsecsha



What if there were redundant biochemical reactions in the cell? The reactions of the citric acid cycle may be the most efficient series of reactions, but like most chemical processes there are multiple ways to get from point A to point B. Evolution does not suggest that the citric acid cycle evolved step-by-step in an organism that was already dependent on it... that would be impossible, and we are aware of that. It could, however, evolve step-by-step if other enzymes and reactions existed that are no longer present in cells today. Furthermore, primitive cells may not have required the full set of reactions that cells today depend on.



When you say that it hasn’t been given much attention, what sort of attention are you referring to? Just because there hasn’t been a PBS special devoted to the evolution of cellular respiration, doesn’t mean the research isn’t out there. I did a quick search on Google Scholar and got quite a few results.



1. So you're claiming people don't accept the problems Darwin saw with his own idea? Even if people are ignorant of the problem it still exists. IF something cannot come via a bit-by-bit process then it cannot evolve, since that is the process evolution uses.... Its simple logic, so if people wish to not believe that, I'll prefer to let them live in their dream land.


2. Yes RNA is amazing and we are learning much more about them... Yet the RNA is coded for via DNA, where did this original RNA come from? That still hasn't been answered. Also if life started as solely RNA based how did the transition from RNA to DNA take place?...(It opens a whole bag of problems)

Furthermore I am sure I have mentioned snoRNA which is used in the preping of functional RNA. This constitutes a chicken and the egg dilemma since the functional RNA is needed for the fitness benefit, or to do the function... yet it also requires the snoRNA to have the correct shape to do the function. Again irreducible complexity is observed biochemically.... Unless you'd propose there was a super single RNA sequence that could do everything, (as I have seen in an evolutionary video, though it was about a super protein)... Which is total fantasy and hasn't been demonstrated empirically.


3. I like how there is the "may", "what if" used indicating that it is still unknown. Throwing around ideas is not science. Now all you need is the empirical evidence that

a ) shows that life existed without the current cellular respiration method
b ) shows how the current method could have "evolved" in a bit-by-bit fashion... (something I have already demonstrated is impossible by the current mechanism of evolution)
c ) show the fitness benefit for each transition or change
d ) show that the cell could still be alive whilst these changes are taking place... (something akin to changing a motor from petrol to gas whilst its still running)

Argumentum ad futuris claims won't help. Science may be working on it, however the result science finds may be inconsistent with your claims.


4. I'd like this problem to be recognised mainstream... taught in classes perhaps... The fact it isn't tells me that there is a downplay on the problems of evolution.

#24 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 06 April 2012 - 08:30 AM



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…

#25 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 06 April 2012 - 05:03 PM

First of all, I want to apologize for my slow replies. I will be quite busy with school and work this month, so please don’t take my delayed responses as a sign that I have abandoned the thread. I will still do my best to reply to everything in order, but for the next couple weeks my internet time will be limited. However, I would like to address Ron’s post right away because I feel that it is important.

Ron, the list I made was not meant to be interpreted as “25 Arguments in Favour of Evolution” or “25 Scientific Facts”. My goal here was to illustrate what evolutionists believe so that our views will be more accurately represented in future debates.

I would like you to consider the following two statements:

1. Humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor.
2. Evolutionists believe that humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor.

The first statement is a claim that cannot be considered true without conclusive scientific evidence backing it up. The second is an accurate generalization regarding the beliefs of a group. You seem to be accusing me of making statements like the first, when my list only contained statements like the second. For this reason, I am unclear as to why my list warranted a warning.
  • menes777 likes this

#26 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 06 April 2012 - 05:57 PM


First of all, I want to apologize for my slow replies. I will be quite busy with school and work this month, so please don’t take my delayed responses as a sign that I have abandoned the thread. I will still do my best to reply to everything in order, but for the next couple weeks my internet time will be limited. However, I would like to address Ron’s post right away because I feel that it is important.

Ron, the list I made was not meant to be interpreted as “25 Arguments in Favour of Evolution” or “25 Scientific Facts”. My goal here was to illustrate what evolutionists believe so that our views will be more accurately represented in future debates.

I would like you to consider the following two statements:

1. Humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor.
2. Evolutionists believe that humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor.

The first statement is a claim that cannot be considered true without conclusive scientific evidence backing it up. The second is an accurate generalization regarding the beliefs of a group. You seem to be accusing me of making statements like the first, when my list only contained statements like the second. For this reason, I am unclear as to why my list warranted a warning.





Consider this Isabella, the word 'believe' was not any part of the conversation. In fact, your actual statement was "According to evolution, humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor that was neither a human nor a chimpanzee.". This is a factual formed statement, not one that is purportedly based upon 'belief'. Further neither of your statements in this post are representative of your statements in the OP.



And the warning was given for the three ACTUAL statements in your OP. There are other statements in your OP that might warrant warnings as well, these were just the most obvious.

And, as a point, the title of the OP (25 Common Misconceptions About Evolution) is suggestive of you “correcting” the non-evolutionists misunderstanding of evolution. The problem is, the evolutionist’s misconception of reality in correlation of your three topics I brought to light.

#27 Portillo

Portillo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 136 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sydney

Posted 06 April 2012 - 06:59 PM

The fossil record is incomplete but there are trillions of fossils. What a coincidence that the only thing missing are the intermediate links.
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#28 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 06 April 2012 - 07:20 PM

The fossil record is incomplete but there are trillions of fossils. What a coincidence that the only thing missing are the intermediate links.


And, in order for evolution to be true, there should be multiple MILLIONS (very conservative estimate) of gradual transitional intermediate links. But what do we find? A supposed millions of years between what evolutionists claim to be transitional links.

#29 Hawkins

Hawkins

    Member

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

Posted 06 April 2012 - 09:24 PM

The 2 applied most misconception of evolution of which the whole ToE is built on are 2 fallacies.

Fallacy 1
Because I observed one thing evolves, such that every species now and in history must have evolved.

Yet observable evidence shows that certain species never changes or there's no observable changes can be obtained. So in order to claim that every known (and unknown) species must have evolved, you need to observe or provide evidence of each species now and in history. Since not all species in history can be known to humans, thus no conclusion can be drawn to say that all species evolved. How ever "all species must have evolved" is already used and applied as fact.

Fallacy 2,
Because all species have evolved (in accordance to fallacy 1), such that all species must have evolved from a single cell (or whatever simplest life form). Even all species "evolve" (subject to mechanisms assumed by today's humans), it by no means says that 1) we already figured out all possible mechanisms, and 2) they have been evolved from simplest life forms (i.e., single cells). Because no evidence ever existed about how a single cell turns into, say, an elephant.

There are other fallacies of which the ToE is based heavily on. For example, when it is observed that A, B, C, D, E and F appear to be looked alike. People will draw the fallacious conclusion that evolution must occur in the sequence that A->B->C->D->E->F. They never consider the possibility that A, B, C, D, E, F are of totally different species, as they appeared to be alike by no means says that they must have relation to each other, they can still be totally independent of each other. Moreover, they also never consider other combinations such as CBDAEF instead of ABCDEF, it is also possibly BDCAFE and so forth.

So what conclusion ToE can draw? It's none. Do every species evolve? ToE pretends to provide an answer yet it is a fallacy saying that "because one or a bunch of species evolves such that all species now and in history must have evolved". Do all species evolve from a single cell (or whatever simple life form)? Again, ToE pretends to give answer which turns out to be a fallacy of "because all species evolves, such that must have been evolved from a single cell.

If you are willing to think deeper you'll notice that ToE is fundamentally built on fallacies, and with the deceptive and fallacious implication that all species evolves and evolved from a single cell.

#30 Hawkins

Hawkins

    Member

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

Posted 06 April 2012 - 09:39 PM

10. Hybridization is an evolutionary mechanism that produces new species.
True, but only in rare cases (ex. certain plants). Frequent hybridization between two species generally counteracts speciation by mixing gene pools.


This is yet another fallacious and deceptive masterpiece from the mouth of the evolutionists. Why don't you just answer the following question directly?

Did it ever occur in history that hybridization brought to new species? Yes or No.

They can't provide an answer to this question yet deceptively lead you to think that hybridization is never fruitful for new species. That's their tactics.

Here are some possible answers to that question,
1. Never (apparently this is a guess)

2. It is possible but it seldom occurs (how do you know, you can go back to history 1 billion years ago to figure this part out? This is yet another guess, less apparently though)

3. By the observations based on today species or some species available for research, it is observed that hybridization seldom bring to new species, that's why in history hybridization seldom brought to new species. (This the same fallacy evolutionists use time and time again for their conclusions. Even when research shows that today's available observations are not in favor of hybridization bringing into new species, it by no means says that in history 1 billion years ago, species at that under extreme conditions at that time that hybridization found a way to survive the nature).

#31 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

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

Posted 07 April 2012 - 12:03 PM

This is yet another fallacious and deceptive masterpiece from the mouth of the evolutionists. Why don't you just answer the following question directly?

Did it ever occur in history that hybridization brought to new species? Yes or No.

They can't provide an answer to this question yet deceptively lead you to think that hybridization is never fruitful for new species.


Interesting, I have never actually considered that hybridization may have caused greater speciation in the past. The Bible does say that animals would produce after their own kind though, not necessarily produce hybrids of kinds. Hybridization of geologically separated species of the same created kind (reuniting after a time) is possible unless there is chromosome fusion which genetically prevents them from reproducing. I believe hybridization of original created kinds is Biblically inconsistent.

#32 Hawkins

Hawkins

    Member

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

Posted 07 April 2012 - 07:33 PM

Interesting, I have never actually considered that hybridization may have caused greater speciation in the past. The Bible does say that animals would produce after their own kind though, not necessarily produce hybrids of kinds. Hybridization of geologically separated species of the same created kind (reuniting after a time) is possible unless there is chromosome fusion which genetically prevents them from reproducing. I believe hybridization of original created kinds is Biblically inconsistent.


I am not talking about the biblical account, I am talking from the evolutionists' perspective using their own language by neglecting the biblical account for a while.

As for biblical account. I believe mostly it's talking about how it originally was. Bible never says anything about what have been going on after the completion of the 6 day creation. God may have created thousands of species then put them in the nature the let the nature continue to impact and make change to the existing species. Moreover, hybridization is also possible biblically speaking, as it is said that God' sons mate with men's daughters. It is possible in ancient times that the Jews called whatever with the shape of a man the son of man while creature which were not human beings, say, other homo erectus the sons of God.

As a result, even when it could be evident that the nature impacted and made certain changes to certain species, it by no means says that this is the way how species were originated. Just like I said, "because I observed the nature making changes to certain species, such that all species must be a result of natural selection" is a fallacy applied by the evolutionists.

#33 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 07 April 2012 - 08:31 PM

I would like you to consider the following two statements:

1. Humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor.
2. Evolutionists believe that humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor.

The first statement is a claim that cannot be considered true without conclusive scientific evidence backing it up. The second is an accurate generalization regarding the beliefs of a group. You seem to be accusing me of making statements like the first, when my list only contained statements like the second. For this reason, I am unclear as to why my list warranted a warning.


Either way, most evolutionists do assert this belief as a fact by claiming DNA similarities between chimps and humans. And then, ask "why would God make them closer to one another than to other primates?" This is a statement from the age of biological ignorance and was never an empirical fact.

In fact, if common design was a valid hypothesis, then we would predict a uniform similarity shared within the primate order.

"In a significant number of cases, evolutionary trees based on DNA sequences show that humans are more closely related to gorillas or orangutans than chimpanzees—again, all depending on which DNA fragment is used for the analysis. The overall outcome is that no clear path of common ancestry between humans and various primates exists, so no coherent model of primate evolution can be achieved.

The recent release of the gorilla genome spectacularly highlights this evolutionary quandary. According to the Nature study, "in 30% of the genome, gorilla is closer to human or chimpanzee than the latter are to each other."

One of the first papers to expose this problem in the area of primate evolution was published in 2007 by the Center for Integrative Bioinformatics of Vienna's Ingo Ebersberger and his colleagues. They wrote:

"Thus, in two-thirds of the cases, a genealogy results in which humans and chimpanzees are not each other's closest genetic relatives. The corresponding genealogies are incongruent with the species tree. In concordance with the experimental evidences, this implies that there is no such thing as a unique evolutionary history of the human genome. Rather, it resembles a patchwork of individual regions following their own genealogy."


Gorilla Genome Is Bad News For Evolution


Enjoy.

#34 Springer

Springer

    Member

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

Posted 03 May 2012 - 10:26 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 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.




5. Evolution ignores the impossibility of irreducible complexity.
False. An evolutionary model would be logically incorrect if the necessity of a trait preceded its appearance, and thus no model depends on this impossibility.





25. All evolutionists are atheists.
False. There are many theistic evolutionists.

.

Irreducible complexity is entirely ignored b evolutionists. There are many examples of traits that have appeared before they were required.
1. Higher intellectual faculties of man, e.g., music and mathematical abilities.
2. Origin of flight in various lineages... e.g. Evolution of the pterosaur's wing.
3. Many examples can be cite where traits in plants benefit other species but not themselves...e.g., edible roots, pharmacological agents in plants.

All evolutionists are not atheists. However, NDT is atheistic, i.e., God is assumed irrelevant. That is tantamount to atheism.

#35 Codex

Codex

    Junior Member

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

Posted 03 May 2012 - 03:02 PM

That is an excellent list, thank you for posting it.

My major is in computer science but I have a minor in evolutionary biology and I agree with every one of your points, well done!
  • Isabella and menes777 like this

#36 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 03 May 2012 - 04:24 PM

Except in the case of Eugenics... Which is a modern stance taken based on evolution to "improve the human race", its tendencies are linked to what Darwin said about not letting your worst animals breed... Hence proponents of Eugenics have sterilized many people who they deemed the "worst".


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

I find it ironic that proponents of evolution wish to smooth over this dark past, yet most are happy to lay into the dark past of Christianity, (crusades etc). I'm not proposing you yourself do these things, just that when the boot is on the other foot its interesting to see what happens.



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.

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.


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.

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.

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.

Lastly, I’d like to point out that artificial selection is not an idea that was introduced by Darwin. 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.
  • menes777 likes this

#37 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 - 11:26 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 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.

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”.


Based upon the evolutionary tree of life and not creation orchard, I have a hard time understanding #2 and as a result #1.

#38 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 - 12:04 PM

So you see, nothing is "more or less evolved" than anything else, all life has been evolving for an equal amount of time and that has shaped the current life forms to the successful forms that exist today.

Don't be confused though, this does not mean that the life that exists right now is perfect. Conditions change, the "goal" of natural selection is to increase fitness, but fitness depends on environment and the environment changes over time. The goal is always changing, and the processes of inheritance, variation, and selection continue to promote organisms that come closer to that ever changing goal.


But if 'all life' "has been evolving for an equal amount of time" then didn't all life start at the same time?

#39 Codex

Codex

    Junior Member

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

Posted 04 May 2012 - 12:12 PM

But if 'all life' "has been evolving for an equal amount of time" then didn't all life start at the same time?


Not necessarily. All life that exists today could be descendents of an organism that came into existence later than another organism whose descendents all went extinct. I don't think anyone actually thinks this but it is technically possible I suppose.

In general, evolutionists believe that all life on Earth today shares a single common ancestor in the distant past, which was not necessarily the first "life" (however you want to define life), but since we all share that ancestor we have all been evolving for equally long since.
  • menes777 likes this

#40 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 - 12:31 PM

Not necessarily. All life that exists today could be descendents of an organism that came into existence later than another organism whose descendents all went extinct. I don't think anyone actually thinks this but it is technically possible I suppose.

In general, evolutionists believe that all life on Earth today shares a single common ancestor in the distant past, which was not necessarily the first "life" (however you want to define life), but since we all share that ancestor we have all been evolving for equally long since.

Then how do you explain what you call 'current species' such as a type of jellyfish (off the top of my head) that haven't evolved for millions of years according to your worldview? Although I do not 'believe' your worldview, I'm trying to reason your presuppossition in my head. (This seems to be a shell game and I'm helping you :( )




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users