Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Religion  > Debunking creationist myths      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Verzen
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 101
Debunking creationist mythsPage 5 of 24    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24)
Buz - Science takes care of explaining the OBSERVABLE universe. If something can't be observed, we shouldn't just assume or guess to the origins. We find observable evidence and then we build off of that evidence.
That is the difference between science and faith. Faith just believes in what they feel is right while science cares about knowing what is right.
 RocketMan_Len
Joined: 7/5/2006
Msg: 102
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/18/2009 6:59:54 PM
Paul...

Contrary to myth, things DO NOT 'de-evolve'. Traits are gained, traits are lost, but things never go backwards.

The selection process isn't totally random, but it's not intelligent either. Predation is part of the equation - animals not as good at hiding, or running, or fighting, are killed before they can pass on their genes to the next generation. The other part of the equation is sexual selection - females tend to want to have children fathered by the 'best' males they can find. That might mean the one with the flashiest feathers, or the most complex vocalizations, or the one that's better at killing antelope.

Between the killing off of weak individuals, plus the desire of females to mate with those that can demonstrate a knack for survival, is what insures that each advantageous mutation survives. No external intelligence necessary.

It's funny... you would think that anyone who has seen the various animal breeds that people have produced, plus the wide and varied plant species, would have at least a rudimentary idea of how evolution works. Cross-breeding has been going on for CENTURIES - so why is adaptation by selection so difficult to understand???
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 103
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/18/2009 7:13:58 PM
and there is not a huge amount of faith involved to believe in evolution??????
especially for the masses, who don't have a clue, who take correcting as you go science as gospel truth.

as I have seen there is still no proof.

learned a lot in the last few months.

found out it is common knowledge in some circles that we are randomly put together.
something we couldn't do if we tryed for a million years. [my opinion, of course!]
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 104
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/18/2009 7:30:44 PM
so lets debunk some creation myths, I'm sure there are many.

aren't there a few evolution myths too???
we'll find them as we go, I suppose, a la science, best we got in this materialistic world.

after having a meal, and a place to sleep, material stuff, including mates, don't seem to [according to present day knowledge] do it.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 105
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/18/2009 7:34:41 PM
so you want it both ways now, random and not random.

I am starting to get really bored!
 vichycycl
Joined: 5/5/2007
Msg: 106
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/18/2009 8:00:35 PM
Verzen:


I love how a layman, such as yourself, is arguing with a biologist, such as Frogo.


I HAVE A BIOLOGY DEGREE. I work part time in a medical lab. I get paid tutoring biology. I give lectures in genetics. I present arguments about evolution, DNA, random mutation and natural selection concisely so as to not lose the lay audience. I don't give super-well-documented and ripping-yet-calm posts like Frog does, no, but everything I say is spot-on with science.

Aremeself was disputing my clear and obviously well-educated posts BEFORE he was arguing with Froggy, but you didn't use ME as a shining standard of actual genetic sagacity did you? DID YOU?!

Frog, you're a gift to this site. When I see the creationist BS I now automatically think "Oh, wait til froggy answers, you'll be sorry."

But I am so damn sick of you getting all the respect and fear of the non-biologically-educated.

I'm gonna go get some ice cream.
 RocketMan_Len
Joined: 7/5/2006
Msg: 107
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/18/2009 8:08:14 PM
Aremeself...

You really haven't been paying attention, have you...?

It's been stated time and again - MUTATION is random, SELECTION is NOT! Further, non-random does not imply an external guiding intelligence - only a preference by other members of a specific group to want to mate with those that offer certain benefits.

We've shown you documented fossil evidence of complexity developing from non-complexity. Guys with letters after their names have explained to you the mechanisms that produce the predicted results. I'm willing to guess that you'll only be satisfied if we can build a time-machine, take you back and let you watch it yourself... and even THEN you won't be convinced.

It's no wonder you're bored... holding your fingers in your ears and shouting 'LALALALALALALALA' must be very taxing...
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 108
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/18/2009 9:21:58 PM
frogo makes the time for me, and I appreciate that a lot.

he slants things the least. he does slant though, and freely extrapolates, at times, which, I will admit creationist can only do.

think it takes me a long time to believe that all this crap came from some gibbled up life form? [really a non life form]
the first life form couldn't be gibbled, had to work good right off the bat, when it eventually got it right, or start over and over..................and then the next step, I get dizzy.
or did the chemistry rules [which came from who knows where] all kick in and it got all simple [realitively speaking] for life to evolve into the billions of life forms we have today?

takes all of you a long time to understand that creationists are not all stupid.
just as many stupid and clueless evolutionists out there.

who said it, nobody really knows anything for sure.

I check things out, and am less and less convinced of evolution.
what can I say.
should I go with the flow?
who besides me and the other guy would you debate with?

other then me being super closed minded, you can't identify with some major issues with "it all happened by itself? " because really, that is what is said.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 109
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/18/2009 9:36:30 PM
frogo would have a name for your outburst.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 110
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/18/2009 9:49:25 PM
rockon

glorifyed random, if it works for you, simply go with it, way to far fetched for this guy.
don't mind me.

picture the sinarios of the brain forming, not enough humans in the world since whenever, we'd have to multiply like bacteria, and even then!

still figuring out bacteria, haven't gotten to the interpretation of the old bone discoveries yet.

ya, I don't listen, most don't even think!
 late™
Joined: 9/11/2009
Msg: 111
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/18/2009 10:32:05 PM

Anyway, what other creationist myths can we debunk?


In the context of science, all of them.

The easiest to debunk and most popular myths are usually just logical fallacies.

The myth of the straw man for example.

The "straw man' argument of misrepresenting scientific terms and frame of reference instead of posting arguments supporting C/ID as valid "science" seems to be a common myth. This is analogous to the following:

Position: The doghouse roof has plywood under the shingles, peeling back a layer of shingles reveals plywood.

Argument: No, it cant because plywood is purple and ice cream has no bones.

Another similar tactic is to avoid any kind of valid scientific argument for C/ID by changing the subject to pursue the the aforementioned myth.

This one often manages to bait some people away from the fact that C/ID doesn't have any scientific validity whatsoever, this is known as the sub-myth of: "the giant red herring who swallowed the straw man".
 late™
Joined: 9/11/2009
Msg: 112
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/18/2009 10:48:30 PM
There ain't no giant red herring mentioned in any of the good books, therefore your argument is not valid.


Ohh! doubling up?

The myth of: "the non-sequitur on the red herring that swallowed the straw man".

Arguing that theological texts are valid as any kind of scientific "good book" (impossible as they are entirely different frames of reference) being the "non sequitur" on the read herring that swallowed the strawman.


As for the strawman, the verdict is still out.


Nope, not the scientific verdict, or the legal one either as the court (See: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District) even recognizes that C/ID is just a deceitful means to inject theology into science - the straw man.

I think that particular straw man's name is Equivocateus
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 113
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/18/2009 10:58:00 PM
one or the other?

hows this, I have less respect for religion then science.
I do believe in a creator of all things.

I said this before, true science and religion can't clash, or one, or both are false.

find the truth, its the same for both.

there is only one truth, maybe no one has it yet.

I just can't see evolution working.
haven't seen the right evidence yet.
I am not putting anyone down.
haven't seen ALL the evidence, but who has?
I am digesting lots of stuff here, but can't see it yet.
bye.
 late™
Joined: 9/11/2009
Msg: 114
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/18/2009 11:10:50 PM
I said this before, true science and religion can't clash, or one, or both are false.


This is like saying that the final score of a football game is incorrect because baseball scores a game differently, making both false.


find the truth, its the same for both.


Why?


haven't seen ALL the evidence, but who has?


See the doghouse analogy, you don't have to peel back all of the shingles to know that the plywood is underneath.


there is only one truth, maybe no one has it yet.


See: "Equivocateus"

Peeling back the shingles would be impractical.

How is it an impractical proof?

Because I would have doubt...


Simple solutions:

Look (up) inside the doghouse .

Build the doghouse using plywood under the shingles, then try building one with "purple", see which actually works.
 late™
Joined: 9/11/2009
Msg: 115
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/18/2009 11:49:16 PM
Okay, let's read both carefully


<div class="quote"> In the context of science, all of them.

The easiest to debunk and most popular myths are usually just logical fallacies.

The myth of the straw man for example.

The "straw man' argument of misrepresenting scientific terms and frame of reference instead of posting arguments supporting C/ID as valid "science" seems to be a common myth. This is analogous to the following:

Position: The doghouse roof has plywood under the shingles, peeling back a layer of shingles reveals plywood.

Argument: No, it cant because plywood is purple and ice cream has no bones.

Another similar tactic is to avoid any kind of valid scientific argument for C/ID by changing the subject (the red herring) to pursue the the aforementioned myth.

This one often manages to bait some people away from the fact that C/ID doesn't have any scientific validity whatsoever, this is known as the sub-myth of: "the giant red herring who swallowed the straw man".

<div class="quote"> There ain't no giant red herring mentioned in any of the good books, therefore your argument is not valid.

Making the non sequitur of the "good books" the perfect fodder for the "Ice cream has no bones" analogy to the straw man/red herring. <img src=http://www.plentyoffish.com/smiles/icon_201.gif border=0>

The myth is that these fallacies are arguments.

"The dog house must have a designer!"

Would be the perfect "bump on the log on the non-sequitur on the red herring that swallowed the straw man".



 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 116
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/18/2009 11:52:55 PM
You guys are NOT deflating my ego any!

I wouldn't consider any of Krebby's posts to be "outbursts". A bit too 'flowery' to be totally clear at times, but the points are generally valid. I would disagree that religion is a societal necessity, and is more of an individual necessity, particularly for those who simply can't accomodate complex explanations or concepts beyond their understanding or comfort. Religion can co-exist with science, but where they conflict, religion loses - evidence and logic side with science, always. Religion can coincide or adapt, or it can become irrelevant.

areme - I appreciate that you are trying to understand, but despite your attempts, it's apparent you're still missing something. I would hazard a guess that what's missing is a background in the subject matter, or an understanding of some of the basic principles like statistics or probability.

As I've said more than once - ToE does not require ANY evidence. it is an explanation for the volumes of evidence which are already known. The very request for evidence is fallacy of various types, most notably "No true Scotsman". That is, the evidence meets the definitions and requirements, but to the claimant, there's some magical new personal standard NOT met. Sorry, but the theory is based on standard definitions, and no amount of personal redefinitions will alter the veracity of the facts or the theory.

The ever-popular appeal to probability or numbers is one of the stupidest arguments, and one of the most frequent. Has anyone attempted to do the math on a single cell, doubling every ten minutes for 3.7 billion years [actually more], with a minimum of one, and likely tens or hundreds of mutations EACH? Certainly MANY die, but within the carrying capacity of the planet, many continue to reproduce. The numbers are still countless, though after about 3 billion years, some of them are multicellular and take longer than ten minutes to double. Ten minutes or 20 years - still a drop in the bucket over a 700 million year span. Did humans evolve from one random individual after another? Not a chance. We evolve from a population of related individuals, sharing and mixing our mutations. Our species has had something like 10000 generations of multiple mutations in each and every individual to produce the 7 billionish humans we have today. Our genus has had an additional 2 million years, likely with a generation time of 15-20 years. Our class, Primates, dates back at least 85 million years, likely with generation times under ten years. EVERY individual which does not die before breeding, adds its mutations to the population. Are we seeing the numbers yet? 100 individuals x 100 mutations x 2^8500000 generations. That's just primates, and is almost as far back as mammals as a whole are known. Mammal-relatives date back about 100 million years. Salamanders and amphibians date back roughly 300 mybp, and would mostly have generational times under five years. Thus far I am only considering our potential relatives.

Now look at the species alive NOW:
5-8 million SPECIES of beetles, many with generation times measured in days, and on average numbering hundreds or thousands of individuals
12000 species of ant, which are just a fraction of up to 2.5 million hymenoptera
11000 mammals
10000 reptiles
5000 frogs
1000 salamanders
20000+ bony fishes
All other insects, crustaceans, arachnids
segmented worms, roundworms, flatworms, cnidarians, coelenterates, sponges
Don't even think of counting the Archaea, bacteria, and single-celled eukaryotes

99% of all life is EXTINCT

Are you starting the see that the appeal to probability, the appeal to "not enough years", just don't work? The number of available mutations is off the scale. Many similar but different results are reached, and they interbreed, exchanging their mutations.

Every juvenile inherits its' father's 100 mutations, AND its' mothers 100 mutations, AND the 100 mutations unique to its germ cells! Does this kill the organism? Only if this planet is lacking in life. The mutations are there, and life thrives. Now mate this individual with another: 400 grandparent mutations, 200 parent mutations, and 100 more for each offspring. Ultimately, most mutations are only shared more or less with the local population. That's simple statistics - you just aren't very likely to breed with anyone far away. That leads to local populations accumulating enough distinct features that they stop outbreeding altogether.

One big fluke change? Far from it - many thousands of small changes recombined in every population. The best combinations succeed, the worst abort. The remainder continue, interbreeding, the best combinations steadily spreading through the population. Gradually; or suddenly, the overall population changes, depending on how distinctive and advantageous the combined features are. Now count that back 700000000 years, to the first multicellular fossils [single cells had 3000000000 years before that to REALLY muck around with basic cellular features and processes]. Figuring out the number of generations involved is another matter. Generally, more ancestral species have shorter times, based on comparison to their living analogs. The math can be greatly simplified, because the time spans can be fit to a bell curve and averaged out. The longest and shortest account for the fewest years, and can be mathematically corrected. I'm not going to do it, partly because I don't have good numbers to use, partly because my mastery of stats is limited, and partly because it's not necessary for my point.

That point is, the time is there, the mutation rates are there, the recombination is there, the selective pressures are there. Evolution is not "improbable", it's "inevitable". That, and the fact it is observed is the whole reason for blaming selection as a driving force, in the form of the "theory of evolution".
 late™
Joined: 9/11/2009
Msg: 117
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/19/2009 12:08:54 AM
Because, if I peeled back the shingles, I would leave them to exposure to the elements of nature, (rain, snow, sun) and that plywood would fall under all of the laws of physics, with which we understand them (contraction of wood with the cold, expansion with the heat). It would be impractical, because ultimately it would damage my doghouse, under such scrutiny.


Ha ha! it's not of any consequence to the analogy of the straw man.


If I looked up inside my doghouse, and saw that it was purple, would I see a concept or a color?

It's of absolutely no point, hence the straw man.

In the context of the validity of arguing against evolution in regards to the question posed in the OP:

"What various creationist myths in reference to evolution can you think of that you are able to debunk?"

"Anyway, what other creationist myths can we debunk?"


The myths in question; ("The easiest to debunk and most popular myths are usually just logical fallacies.") ..is that; fallacious reasoning to refute evolution is a valid scientific "proof" of C/ID.

I did mix a metaphor with the "there's a hole in the bottom of the sea" reference, but it was intentional....




 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 118
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/19/2009 1:07:54 AM
It's still a strawman because the argument refuted is NOT the argument presented. Thus, you are attacking a "straw man" rather than the actual opponent. The fact that the two are not equal is why it's a fallacy. The original example refuted the natures of plywood and ice cream, and NOT doghouse construction. Nowhere was "purple" mentioned as a factor in dog houses, so what is or is not purple is irrelevant.


should I discount what I felt or experienced?

It's not relevant to the argument.
 late™
Joined: 9/11/2009
Msg: 119
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/19/2009 1:29:52 AM
I did mix a metaphor with the "there's a hole in the bottom of the sea" reference, but it was intentional....

As an addendum and a preemptive refutation: If any choose to continue muddying the analogy, I'll be obliged to further mix metaphors by adding a verse from "There Was an Old Lady Who Swallowed a Fly" , in hopes it'll die (I do know why).

And if someone refutes it, is this not building upon a straw man who is already a straw man?

Further changing an analogy (context) of the straw man to distract from the original premise is the red herring, the addition of refuting the red herring via adding the lack of a red herring in the bible ("goodbooks") is both a non sequitur (most likely with facetious intent) and argumentum ad nauseum. (i.e the origin of my "doubling up" reference).
 arthur55a
Joined: 9/1/2009
Msg: 120
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/19/2009 2:23:06 AM
We are genetically programmed to eat and breed. Anything else not necessary for survival is irrelevent. Knowledge of the universe, understanding of evolution or the psychology of human instincts is not necessary for human existence; indeed is far too complex and vast to be understood. We, as a species, have no concept or no need of such concept of such wonders to perform our basic existence. It is so much easier to just say "God did it", that way, we don't have to actually think.
 Verzen
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 121
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/19/2009 11:39:40 AM
Paul, let me explain this in terms you might understand.
Now I will name a series of letters.

A B B A C A C B D C B A

Now, according to the environment, A and B die off because they can't survive in that environment. So once every year, A and B automatically die off and dont get to breed.

We are left with

C C D C

Now, they breed and mutations end up occurring

A C C D D D D C C E E F F C D B E F D C D

Now since the environment still wont let A and B survive it comes down to this

C C D D D D C C E E F F C D E F D C D

Now the environment changes a little bit and we are left with every letter below D which dies off.

D D D D E E F F D E F D D

Now they mutate and breed again and we eventually get

D D D D E E F F D E F D D G G E F

ETC ETC does this make sense?
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 122
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/19/2009 12:01:54 PM
It seems as if Creationist myths are just as prevalent in the Materialist community, only their "creator" is called Mutation/Selection.


Versus the "creator" of the dogmatic creationist/IDer who is a magical sky man who created us but left no proof of its existence but, well, we don't understand evolution or how it works so we're just going to assume it must have been It.

Talk about blind faith in a fairy tale. I'm willing to acknowledge the possibility of a "creator," but give me more than "well, everything is just too complicated," your own incredulity and sense of personal intellectual superiority.

How about a little thing we "materialists" like to call actual evidence. Hint: gaps aren't evidence.
 RocketMan_Len
Joined: 7/5/2006
Msg: 123
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/19/2009 12:24:59 PM
Paul...

Believe it or not, breeders DO NOT 'intelligently design' the animals they breed. They breed a LOT of animals, *select* the ones with traits they want, and allow them to breed again. The animals with traits they don't want... they either don't allow to breed, or kill them outright.

And you're just not seeing the point. Cross breeding is a form of selection, which is the very basis of evolution. Look at what we've done to both plants and animals, over the course of roughly ten thousand years. Left to itself, the same process will still work on every living thing... only more slowly and to different ends. We select for aesthetics, nature merely selects for survival.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 124
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/19/2009 12:27:03 PM
Creationist myth: cherry picking and revision of the facts somehow alters reality

Mutated hox genes have only resulted in hideous deformations like in the fruit fly experiments where one particularly grotesque mutation labeled, " Antennapedia" caused legs to appear where antennae should have grown

Isn't that special. And irrelevant. These mutations are used to map and identify the individual functions of the HOX gene family.

The mutation of the hox gene did not add any new information (such as that required to actually constructs the legs)

Strawman. No-one suggested this.

"New information" is added by DUPLICATING the homeobox genes. Mutation of the copies is why there is a HOX "family" and not just a single gene. The different and multiple derivatives of the original gene are responsible for the development and order of segmented structures. Copy a gene, copy a structure. Change the gene, change the structure. Move the gene, move the structure. I CAN TYPE LOUDER IF IT WILL HELP.


(Bowden M., "Science VS Evolution", 1991, Sovereign Publications, Kent
UK p55)

Science VS Evolution? Sounds objective to me, but lets look at the meat...

Polyploidy produces NO NEW CHARACTERISTICS whatsoever

Strawman. Yep. Quality work here.

cases of polyploidy in animals is confined mainly to a few worms, insects etc. that are self fertilising.

False. Awesome text you're citing here. I can provide hundreds of examples, all of them heterosexual tetrapod vertebrates. All the taxa in the list I provided are among them.

IT HAS PLAYED NO SIGNIFICANT PART IN THE EVOLUTION OF THE ANIMAL KINGDOM

A natural conclusion if you ignore evidence to the contrary. Have you considered finding [or reading] some unbiased or otherwise scientific sources? There's no shortage of animals or plant species which are clear examples of polyploidy relative to their kin and ancestors. Polyploidy with subsequent mutation of the genes on individual chromosomes. I know, these are tough concepts to wrap your head around.


(Hoyle F. & Wickramasinghe C., "Evolution from Space", 1981,
J.M. Dent & Sons, London, London, pp99-101):

Hm. Yet another impressive title. Annnnnd...the rest of the citation just shows that these authors are as astute as the first, or are deliberately ignoring the facts.

Duplicate genes can have significant influences, in the form of number or size of particular organs. Duplicate genomes have little direct impact. Alterations to duplicate genes, however, can be very important. Mutations of copies do not affect the function of the original, and are thus a gateway to a large variety of new results.

Both citations ignore this, apparently by their choice of willfull ignorance and furtherance of the agendas implied in their titles, though I'd be surprised if your own cherry-picking wasn't also a factor.


by scientific evidence that disagrees with your materialist dogma

Your frequent use of "materialist" and related phrases is entertaining. I'm so offended to be classed among those who require substance or evidence for an argument! I'm not sure how that qualifies as dogma, nor how it disagrees with science, since dogma ignores evidence and science requires it! Materialism...material world...substance...facts...evidence...logic. I can see why you oppose the concept.


That 1995 Nobel prize was for the discovery of the functionality of the hox gene in fruit-flys and the physiological effects of radiation

It was for work which showed the temporal and physical links between genes of the HOX families. Genes which, when duplicated, add structures to the body. Genes which, when changed, change those structures. That would seem to meet the needs of your request. Mind you, the influences of duplication and mutation on HOX were already known, and the Nobel was awarded for more specific follow-up studies. Nonetheless, it was awarded for work which requires that your original requirement already be met.


Any attempts by dogmatic materialists to try and use the number of chromosomes to explain an organisms evolutionary complexity must first deal with the questions such as:

Speaking of strawmen and Scotsmen, red herrings and appeals to numbers. This sounds like a rerun of "first you must explain the origin of life", "first you must explain the origin of the universe", "first you must explain the failure of Edsel". Simply...um..."no".

For that matter, who is attempting to do this? Xenopus tropicalis has 20 chromosomes. Xenopus ruwenzoriensis has 108. That doesn't render the latter a tree or a whale. In fact, the only one calling for "new information" as a requisite for evolution is YOU. Change of information is all that is required. Duplication of DNA only increases the ability to change.


"How can actual numbers of chromosomes reflect evolutionary scale, when Man has 46 diploid chromosomes, apes 48, hares 48, potato48, goats 60, pidgeons 80, and ferns have over 1200?"

Continuing the strawman...

They don't. For that matter, what "scale"? All species have the same number of years of evolutionary history. It just happens that some more closely resemble older species than others do. That, and some [usually humans] are arbitrarily considered more "special" or "evolved" than others, which is an entirely subjective and unscientific viewpoint. One normally advanced as part of the core of creationism.


only their "creator" is called Mutation/Selection

Gotcha. Logic and evidence rather than intangible fantasies. I can live with that.

Read any Good Books lately? You could perhaps diversify your material by adding something unbiased and factual.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 125
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/19/2009 12:28:36 PM

there is no way that the "new" ones that are bigger/better/stronger, and hence more likely to survive, will ALWAYS survive. You are relying on "more likely", because that is the best you will get for your scenario to occur, as there is no control.


Jumping on this one...

No one can say anything will "always" survive. That's the nature of evolution. Even today's best adapted creature could be tomorrow's evolutionary side-note due to sudden climatic upheaval, etc. The point is, there is no control[/].


How many mutations would it take for, say, the being that was found in Africa that was named "Jane" to mutate to modern man?


How long is a piece of string? Who's to say "Jane" was on its way to modern man. There are a number of primate fossils from species that led to dead ends. Again, that's how evolution works.
Show ALL Forums  > Religion  > Debunking creationist myths