Question Evolution! 15 questions evolutionists cannot adequately answer

[dirtyparrot]

And yet bacteria are undisputed masters of this planet. Speaking of that, I'm kind of surprised that the OP's list lacked the origin of the eukaryotoic cell (perhaps more improbable than life itself?). And it's not as if sexual reproduction is the only way more-complex life could work -- bdelloid rotifers demonstrate that.

There's no doubt a major benefit to sexual reproduction when faced with multiple stressers at once. A subset of that, Red Queen is also well supported. I remain skeptical that this truly outweighs only contributing half yourself to offspring. To me, halving yourself only makes sense with long-term foresight. Else, you're not going to benefit from the potential of running into multiple stressors in the present where you're under limited stress.



At the outset, it doesn't require any more energy than a female making an egg. It may require more energy after offspring are born, since only one parent is there to feed / defend them.

Bacteria are the masters because of their short generation times allowing numerous cracks at hitting the lotto. Mosquitoes and other pests to a lesser degree display similar abilities to adapt probably for similar reasons.

There may be no choice but to produce haploid sex cells in order to maintain the "right" number of chromosomes. There seems to be very little allowance for more or less than the "right" number of chromosomes. Based on what we know, if 2N became 4N, 4N became 8N, ..., this generally does not end well.

 

[El_Machinae]

IMO, creationism is an attack on Christianity. It certainly blasphemes the Creator, accusing It of sins that it never committed.

 

[dirtyparrot]

Rebuking creationism isn't an attack on Christianity.

In the same way that Medicine is not an attack on Xianity. The only diffierence is that nobody is proposing that teaching what Jesus did to heal the sick should be taught and used by doctors. There are a number of instances where Xians recognize that the good book is archaic and ought not to be followed.

 

[kramerfan86]

I think that people tend to forget that the right to preach evolution was won in a courtroom. My question is why are "men" afraid to teach both side by side? Why has it gotten to the point that one is ridiculed and has to "fight" back. Logically it is the survival of the fittest, but it is easier to believe what one "thinks" he sees, than to have faith in what one cannot see?

Neither side has all the facts. One side has a book. The other side has predictive guesses that sometimes seem logical and sometimes are swept under the rug. Neither side was there when things were happening, to record and "scientifically" address the situation. So it seems to me that both sides have to have "faith" in the unkown.

This is always one of the worst points raised in this debate. The answer is simple, because one of them is a religion one of them is science. Religion has no place in the public school system, science does. If you want religious education go to a private school or educate your children at home. It is not the state's job to endorse the Christian religion over other religions.

 

[timtofly]

Yes. We should not take enlightenment for granted, and should resist being dragged back into the dark ages where superstition holds sway.


Probably because there are not many lessons where science and religion both belong.
Creationism is not scientific, so teach it somewhere else, and do not presume to contaminate science by comparing the two.


Creationism is ridiculed because it is ridiculous. And the attempts to besmirch science by false comparision take its proponents beyond mere ridiculousness towards dishonesty.


As with so many quotes from creationists - words like 'logic' suddenly seem vested with a whole new meaning. This should not happen outside the pages of Lewis Carroll.


Your book is a poor substitute for facts.



Occasionally in the early morning I can pick up an american channel where preachers, - in the middle of many individuals throwing their hands up in the air - run a lot of words together in a narrative thread that makes little sense, but always seems to end up with a suggestion that anyone at home credulous enough is free to send in lots of money.

Find someone suggestible, then fleece them.
This has always been the way of religion. There have always been a supply of the credulous, and the future offers little respite from this.

I am not suggesting every religious person is credulous, of course - someone has to count the collections and mount the marketing campaigns.

So it remains important to hold fast against the false preachers.

It seems to me, that Creation.com seems, to you, to be worthy of reading.
Why ? this seems to me to be an unknown.

Have faith in it? - I don't see the reason in this.
And give me reason over faith any day.

How dare you presume to compare these two things ?

Not sure where religion ever entered the post, but pointing out its flaws was not my point. It is true that some regard the book as religious, and some regard it as fallacious. I do neither. You can take the reason that your environment has forced upon you and that is your free choice. Yes it takes faith to predict and when the predictions are overwhelming in that favor it is "fact". Both side speculate on what happened, but neither side has a front row seat to the action.

You bring me evidence of creationism, or intelligent design, and I'm willing to listen to you. It would be the single greatest scientific discovery in history.

Of course even if you did have this, we still wouldn't be teaching biblical creationism in a class room -- no reason to give the bible's account special treatment over any other groups.

No, that evidence would not be the single greatest discovery in history. History cheats us of that discovery in that people do not preserve history, they live it. What is preserved in computer form today would be meaningless in a thousand years. The Computer itself was a great discovery in history, but that concept will probably be lost on people 1000 years from now. History changes and so does the "present" meaning of that history. No, the debate boils down to man's reasoning that God did not do it, or trust that God did it. Because man's reasoning is just a rationalization of faith in what someone says happened millenia ago, just as taking God at His word is rational in the fact that it to can be reasoned out. If you think that most creationist "believe" because someone said so, you can take the same argument and apply it to peer review, where many people agree on what one person "said". Reasoning is the ability to figure things out and both sides have it. Telling some one they are brain dead for reasoning one way should have been left behind with cooties in kindergarten?

Do you have proof that science and God can be taught together in classes today without one side being ridiculed? BTW, I am not talking about religion one iota.

This is always one of the worst points raised in this debate. The answer is simple, because one of them is a religion one of them is science. Religion has no place in the public school system, science does. If you want religious education go to a private school or educate your children at home. It is not the state's job to endorse the Christian religion over other religions.

Is this a religiously absolute?

 

[kramerfan86]

You ARE talking about religion. You can keep saying "not religion, not religion" until you are blue in the face, but at the end of the day as soon as you have brought God into it, you have brought religion into it. It is impossible to separate the two. God in the singular is an endorsement of the Abrahamic family of religions. Should classes also take the time to address the Hindu, Buddhist, Native American, African, etc views on the matter? These are science classes, not world culture studies.

 

[Arakhor]

Creationism is not synonymous with Christianity, no matter how many times people may try to tell you that, any more than condemning the Inquisition being an attack on the Vatican City.

 

[bhsup]

Look, I'm not a YEC'er, okay? But all this thread seems to be was an OP followed by 6 pages of people getting off saying how stupid they are. Just a big troll thread.

 

[Arakhor]

To be fair, the answers seem to be in the same vein and tone as the questions.

 

[El_Machinae]

I think it's obvious that YECers aren't dumb. Just their teachers and leaders are. If someone tries to propagate YECism, from a position of authority, they've not the metacognitive resources to be called anything other than 'dumb'.

 

[timtofly]

You ARE talking about religion. You can keep saying "not religion, not religion" until you are blue in the face, but at the end of the day as soon as you have brought God into it, you have brought religion into it. It is impossible to separate the two. God in the singular is an endorsement of the Abrahamic family of religions. Should classes also take the time to address the Hindu, Buddhist, Native American, African, etc views on the matter? These are science classes, not world culture studies.

Ah, the classification of Abrahamic religions to change the definition of talking about God as a religion and not an every day fact. Either God exist or He does not and that has nothing to do with religion. It does not matter what Abraham believed, What Budha believed, or what Krishna, or any other human believed. Is it nice to just brush off my belief as a religion so as to throw off my credence as one who can not rationalize?

What if Darwin had not had an epiphany when he did? Would we be having this discussion? I am sorry, I was not trying to make him a religious person. And NO, talking about God is not an exercise in religion. If that is the case, then there are a lot of religious cussers out there. So no, I will never get blue in the face, because I have the Truth, and no one will ever deny that of me. BTW following a religion is the best damnation that satan has in his arsenal and if talking about satan is a taboo, then people really have become their own gods and nothing is sacred any more.

 

[kramerfan86]

Creationism is not synonymous with Christianity, no matter how many times people may try to tell you that, any more than condemning the Inquisition being an attack on the Vatican City.

It might not be synonymous with Christianity, but it IS synonymous with the Abrahamic religions. No one is going to confuse the creationism they want in US classrooms with the creation myths of non-Abrahamic religions. You can try to wiggle around it using generalized language but the story is still the story and is an endorsement of one religion (or group of religions in this case) over others.

 

[kramerfan86]

Ah, the classification of Abrahamic religions to change the definition of talking about God as a religion and not an every day fact. Either God exist or He does not and that has nothing to do with religion. It does not matter what Abraham believed, What Budha believed, or what Krishna, or any other human believed. Is it nice to just brush off my belief as a religion so as to throw off my credence as one who can not rationalize?

What if Darwin had not had an epiphany when he did? Would we be having this discussion? I am sorry, I was not trying to make him a religious person. And NO, talking about God is not an exercise in religion. If that is the case, then there are a lot of religious cussers out there. So no, I will never get blue in the face, because I have the Truth, and no one will ever deny that of me. BTW following a religion is the best damnation that satan has in his arsenal and if talking about satan is a taboo, then people really have become their own gods and nothing is sacred any more.

I dont really care what synonym makes you feel comfortable: belief, faith, religion, truth, whatever. It has no place in the classroom because it isnt science. Yea evolution takes some faith, what makes it science is that that isnt good enough for scientists, who continue to search for new evidence for or against the current idea. Faith/religion doesnt search for new evidence "the truth" is the truth because _____ says so. That is why these claims evolution is just faith/religion in a different skin are weak, because science approaches their beliefs with an entirely different mindset. The truth isnt the truth simply because it is in science.

 

[GoodGame]

Ahh cool, I love these threads that are just intended to be pile-up attacks on Christians. w00t. GO ATHEISM GO!

Original post followed by 6 pages of circle-jerking. Impressive!

The OP was a circle-jerk for one.

 

[bathsheba666]

Not sure where religion ever entered the post, but pointing out its flaws was not my point. It is true that some regard the book as religious, and some regard it as fallacious. I do neither. You can take the reason that your environment has forced upon you and that is your free choice. Yes it takes faith to predict and when the predictions are overwhelming in that favor it is "fact". Both side speculate on what happened, but neither side has a front row seat to the action.



No, that evidence would not be the single greatest discovery in history. History cheats us of that discovery in that people do not preserve history, they live it. What is preserved in computer form today would be meaningless in a thousand years. The Computer itself was a great discovery in history, but that concept will probably be lost on people 1000 years from now. History changes and so does the "present" meaning of that history. No, the debate boils down to man's reasoning that God did not do it, or trust that God did it. Because man's reasoning is just a rationalization of faith in what someone says happened millenia ago, just as taking God at His word is rational in the fact that it to can be reasoned out. If you think that most creationist "believe" because someone said so, you can take the same argument and apply it to peer review, where many people agree on what one person "said". Reasoning is the ability to figure things out and both sides have it. Telling some one they are brain dead for reasoning one way should have been left behind with cooties in kindergarten?

Do you have proof that science and God can be taught together in classes today without one side being ridiculed? BTW, I am not talking about religion one iota.


Is this a religiously absolute?

Ah, the classification of Abrahamic religions to change the definition of talking about God as a religion and not an every day fact. Either God exist or He does not and that has nothing to do with religion. It does not matter what Abraham believed, What Budha believed, or what Krishna, or any other human believed. Is it nice to just brush off my belief as a religion so as to throw off my credence as one who can not rationalize?

What if Darwin had not had an epiphany when he did? Would we be having this discussion? I am sorry, I was not trying to make him a religious person. And NO, talking about God is not an exercise in religion. If that is the case, then there are a lot of religious cussers out there. So no, I will never get blue in the face, because I have the Truth, and no one will ever deny that of me. BTW following a religion is the best damnation that satan has in his arsenal and if talking about satan is a taboo, then people really have become their own gods and nothing is sacred any more.

Is there, by any chance, any meaning lurking in the undergrowth?

 

[naterator]

Look, I'm not a YEC'er, okay? But all this thread seems to be was an OP followed by 6 pages of people getting off saying how stupid they are. Just a big troll thread.

Have you not noticed the multiple posters vigorously arguing the other side? Or did you just not read the thread?

 

[dirtyparrot]

What if Darwin had not had an epiphany when he did? Would we be having this discussion?

Yes. Same thing with Newton and gravity, Watson/Crick with the double helix, or Einstein and relativity. The only difference is that someone else would be credited for making that discovery.

 

[Leoreth]

I think that people tend to forget that the right to preach evolution was won in a courtroom.

And you accuse others of bringing religion into it?

Also, don't bring to much provincialism into it. Not the whole world has its educational boards occupied by people who apparently never learnt what science is about so that you have to resort to courts to bring them to reason.

My question is why are "men" afraid to teach both side by side?

"Men" is an odd choice for a word here, and I guess you know that. We're not talking about "men" here, but about government sponsored schools who run science classes, emphasis on science.

Only sticking some scientific-sounding words on a creation myth to make it pass as science doesn't make it science. That myth has already enough places were it is spread, but at least there it's not disguised as science, so it's no problem in my opinion.

Why has it gotten to the point that one is ridiculed and has to "fight" back. Logically it is the survival of the fittest, but it is easier to believe what one "thinks" he sees, than to have faith in what one cannot see?

Again, are we still in the field of the so-called scientific theory of creationism, or already in the field of faith? For someone who wants creationism treated as the former you talk a lot like it's the latter.

Neither side has all the facts. One side has a book. The other side has predictive guesses that sometimes seem logical and sometimes are swept under the rug. Neither side was there when things were happening, to record and "scientifically" address the situation. So it seems to me that both sides have to have "faith" in the unkown.

Besides the fact that my above comment applies to this paragraph as well, it's not the same situation.

Creationism started with a conclusion and built its theory around it, evolution started with observations and tried to explain them. Only the latter is scientific method.

Ahh cool, I love these threads that are just intended to be pile-up attacks on Christians. w00t. GO ATHEISM GO!

Original post followed by 6 pages of circle-jerking. Impressive!

Er, this thread was intended to "diss" evolutionists by copying some smart questions they allegedly couldn't answer. Turned out they could. So what?

And again, why do you bring Christianity and Atheism into a discussion that is about the scientific theory of evolution and the allegedly scientific theory of creationism That Has Nothing To Do With Christianity, I ask you?

 

[mangxema]

Why do creationists paint evolution as the atheist answer to Life, the Universe and Everything, rather than just the Theory of Evolution? Is it because it disagrees with Genesis and is therefore Bad and Wrong?

My guess, projection. Not that there's anything wrong with that necessarily; it is only natural to try to relate to unfamiliar concepts in familiar terms.

What if Darwin had not had an epiphany when he did? Would we be having this discussion?

Yes... The only difference is that someone else would be credited for making that discovery.

Not only that, we have a pretty good idea who that person would have been.

 

[kramerfan86]

What is ridiculous is believing the theory of evolution is correct doesnt mean you are an atheist. Plenty of people think something might be behind the original creation of life or the process of evolution, but realize it isnt science and as such has no place in a science class room.