This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

I'm calling you out, Marioguy5. Let's debate evolution and creationism

#51ThuggernautzPosted 11/13/2012 8:54:30 AM
Marioguy5 posted...

lol You have reading comprehension fail. I said "Not too many links", not "No links allowed!". Oftentimes, I have debated with people who only post links, and when they DO say something, they post a dozen links that they expect me to read in extreme detail. Posting some links is absolutely fine. Not only fine, but encouraged!


Excellent. I have no qualms then! I, too, shall be sitting back with some popcorn. I might interject from time to time though.
#52Marioguy5Posted 11/13/2012 8:57:34 AM
Thuggernautz posted...
Marioguy5 posted...

lol You have reading comprehension fail. I said "Not too many links", not "No links allowed!". Oftentimes, I have debated with people who only post links, and when they DO say something, they post a dozen links that they expect me to read in extreme detail. Posting some links is absolutely fine. Not only fine, but encouraged!


Excellent. I have no qualms then! I, too, shall be sitting back with some popcorn. I might interject from time to time though.


Awesome! I like you, you're generally polite.
Also, I can't begin now. I AM back from the dentist (had to get FOUR fillings :P), but I'm homeschooled, and mom wants me to do my school. Why must school get in the way of everything?
---
If you are a Christian and 110% proud of it, put this as your signature.
If you are interested in science, check out the work of Dr. Carl Werner.
#53Fingerpuppet(Topic Creator)Posted 11/13/2012 10:43:31 AM
Marioguy5 posted...
Fingerpuppet posted...
It's kind of sad, really. I already stated that he would go first but he's intent on waiting...


And I said I would begin once you agreed to the rules and responded. I can't start RIGHT now, as I'm going to the dentist. I must say though fingerpuppet, you haven't managed to say one polite thing so far.


Perhaps because you and C_Mat are intent on finding anything to demonize me? Hurry up; I haven't got all day.
---
http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/214-paranormal-conspiracy/63352960#16
The greatest shut down ever.
#54Marioguy5Posted 11/13/2012 11:42:37 AM(edited)
Fingerpuppet posted...
Marioguy5 posted...
Fingerpuppet posted...
It's kind of sad, really. I already stated that he would go first but he's intent on waiting...


And I said I would begin once you agreed to the rules and responded. I can't start RIGHT now, as I'm going to the dentist. I must say though fingerpuppet, you haven't managed to say one polite thing so far.


Perhaps because you and C_Mat are intent on finding anything to demonize me? Hurry up; I haven't got all day.


Neither do I, that's why I couldn't start right then. And remember, this is a casual debate if possible.
I will commence. Bear in mind, you probably heard some or most of my points, but I will go deeper than many, and try bringing up new problems.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEGc5EmOXxc

First off, I'll start with the mechanics of evolution. First off, there's a bunch of ideas Darwin had that have been disproved (most everyone agrees, even evolutionists). For example, he thought that if an animal grew very strong during it's life, it would pass on those traits. Or if someone had a major tan, that tan could be passed on. Or if you cut the tail off a mouse, it's offspring wouldn't have tails. Stuff like that has obviously been debunked. So that mechanic is false. But I'm sure you knew that, I'm just working through.
Secondly, use and disuse. He thought that (for example) if a bear didn't use it's back legs very much, it could eventually "shed" them. So the belief is that an animal could, through breeding, get rid of body parts it didn't use much. That has also been debunked. Again, you probably know this already. That mechanic is false.
We come to the biggies, natural selection and mutations. Natural selection (or Survival of the Fittest) is the idea that the weaker and less adapted animals get "killed off", leaving behind the animals that can survive. This is a very legitimate concept. Say that there are two bears in a snowy wasteland. One is black, one is white. The white one would be able to blend in better, and thus would be able to hunt and survive better. The black one would eventually die, with the white on remaining. Natural selection is this on a larger scale. However, an important detail is that it helps by getting rid of the weaker, not by creating the stronger. It doesn't add, it just subtracts. Natural selection cannot cause evolution. It doesn't affect the development of creatures, just which ones make it through. You could for millions of years kill off smaller breeds of dogs, getting rid of smallness. But you wouldn't, by getting rid of the smaller ones, make the other dogs grow.
Finally, mutations. Mutations are random "glitches" in the DNA. Say that there is a sequence of 200 letters (nucleotide bases). A mutation would cause, say, the 174th letter to change, thus altering the entire sequence of code. Mutations CAN be beneficial, but are more often neutral or harmful. You also must realize that mutations are indeed random. (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/mutations_07)
Thus, the process of evolution truly is random, regardless of what many say. It relies almost completely on pure luck. Sure, the mutated animals that turn out bad may be killed, but the process of evolution in itself is a random process.
Thoughts?
---
If you are a Christian and 110% proud of it, put this as your signature.
If you are interested in science, check out the work of Dr. Carl Werner.
#55Marioguy5Posted 11/13/2012 11:32:16 AM
And remember, be nice :P
---
If you are a Christian and 110% proud of it, put this as your signature.
If you are interested in science, check out the work of Dr. Carl Werner.
#56ThuggernautzPosted 11/13/2012 11:37:42 AM
Biting... my.... tongue.........
#57Marioguy5Posted 11/13/2012 11:40:33 AM
Thuggernautz posted...
Biting... my.... tongue.........


What was wrong with it?
---
If you are a Christian and 110% proud of it, put this as your signature.
If you are interested in science, check out the work of Dr. Carl Werner.
#58GBALoserPosted 11/13/2012 11:43:34 AM
Marioguy5 posted...
Thuggernautz posted...
Biting... my.... tongue.........


What was wrong with it?


Methinks Tuggz wants to be counterpoint but he's waiting for fingers response first out of politeness.
---
Every once in a while I realize the human race may be worth saving. Of course, then I come back here, but still, those are good moments. -Readyman
#59Marioguy5Posted 11/13/2012 11:44:30 AM
GBALoser posted...
Marioguy5 posted...
Thuggernautz posted...
Biting... my.... tongue.........


What was wrong with it?


Methinks Tuggz wants to be counterpoint but he's waiting for fingers response first out of politeness.


Ah. That's quite nice of him!
---
If you are a Christian and 110% proud of it, put this as your signature.
If you are interested in science, check out the work of Dr. Carl Werner.
#60Fingerpuppet(Topic Creator)Posted 11/13/2012 4:27:56 PM
First off, I'll start with the mechanics of evolution. First off, there's a bunch of ideas Darwin had that have been disproved (most everyone agrees, even evolutionists).

Most of what Darwin has said is irrelevant. The theory of evolution has developed much farther than him and illustrating his views is pointless.



Secondly, use and disuse. He thought that (for example) if a bear didn't use it's back legs very much, it could eventually "shed" them. So the belief is that an animal could, through breeding, get rid of body parts it didn't use much. That has also been debunked. Again, you probably know this already. That mechanic is false.

See above. However, this is a point that is actually correct to an extent; unused parts will eventually go away (though not as fast as harmful ones.) For example, you have a tailbone but no tail. Our early ancestors had one, but we humans have no use for it and so it has slowly disappeared until all that's left is the bone where it used to grow from.

We come to the biggies, natural selection and mutations. Natural selection (or Survival of the Fittest) is the idea that the weaker and less adapted animals get killed off...However, an important detail is that it helps by getting rid of the weaker, not by creating the stronger. It doesn't add, it just subtracts.

And there is actually nothing wrong with this. For example, there exist bacteria that are resistant to penicillin. Bacteria that are not resistant will eventually die out because they will not live long enough to reproduce; this is a result that has been confirmed in laboratory tests and studies.

Natural selection cannot cause evolution. It doesn't affect the development of creatures, just which ones make it through.

You mean to tell me that giraffes having longer necks and surviving longer than others doesn't actually have anything to do with the development of an entirely new species that is better suited to the environment it lives in? You, sir, are wrong. That's the entire point of evolution: things that don't do as well don't make it through.

You could for millions of years kill off smaller breeds of dogs, getting rid of smallness. But you wouldn't, by getting rid of the smaller ones, make the other dogs grow.

This is fairly obvious, but it doesn't actually point anything out. Furthermore, it doesn't help nor hinder your argument. This is about evolution, not about the size of dogs.

Finally, mutations. Mutations are random "glitches" in the DNA. Say that there is a sequence of 200 letters (nucleotide bases). A mutation would cause, say, the 174th letter to change, thus altering the entire sequence of code. Mutations CAN be beneficial, but are more often neutral or harmful. You also must realize that mutations are indeed random. (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/mutations_07)
Thus, the process of evolution truly is random, regardless of what many say. It relies almost completely on pure luck. Sure, the mutated animals that turn out bad may be killed, but the process of evolution in itself is a random process.


Of course evolution is a random process. I don't understand how this is a bad thing, and I'm not sure you do either; in the last part you're only proving the point that animals unable to adapt will die out. I don't understand what the issue is here.
---
http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/214-paranormal-conspiracy/63352960#16
The greatest shut down ever.