Theory of Evolution - argument for/against

[GrimJack]

Standards:
No ad hominem attacks
No insults

An argument is, to quote the Monty Python sketch, "a connected series of statements to establish a definite proposition."

Please try to avoid the major logical fallacies.
Definition - Theory:
In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation.
Definition - Evolution:
Evolution is usually defined simply as changes in trait or gene frequency in a population of organisms from one generation to the next. However, "evolution" is often used to include the following additional claims:
1. Differences in trait composition between isolated populations over many generations may result in the origin of new species.
2. All living organisms alive today have descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool).

Various famous people say:

Judge a man by his questions rather than by his answers.
--Voltaire (1694-1778)
A definition is no proof.
--William Pinkney, American diplomat (1764-1822)
A theory is more impressive the greater the simplicity of its premises, the more different the kinds of things it relates and the more extended its range of applicability.
--Albert Einstein, 1949

If anyone wants to add anything to the definitions or rules, now is as good a time as any - or jump right in with your argument. Please feel free to argue with any part of this post.

[Ancient Dragon]

I know many people mistakenly believe evolution is a fact while its actually nothing more than just a good (ok very good) theory. There is no way to prove evolution, just as there is no way to prove creationism. We can believe all we want but that doesn't make it fact. We can test short evolution durations, say between two or three generations or so but there is no way to show how (or if) one species evolves into an entirely different species.

I'm not arguing that evolution doesn't exit -- only that it isn't a proven fact.

Creationism, on the otherhand, is on an even shaker grounds than evolution. Its not even possible to create a theory about intelligent creation. I do think there was intelligent design when creating the universe. Something, or someone, had to create the universe -- it didn't just happen out of nothing. Even if you believe the Big Bang theory, someone had to create that mass that exploded.

My though is that the Bible correctly tells us who created the universe, but what it doesn't tell us is how it was created. We will never know the true answer to that, but it probably started with the Big Bang. When the Earth cooled down enough to support life then evolution took hold, and over a few billion years we humans evolved into what we are today.

[Aia]

...And they lived happily ever after. The end.

[VernonDozier]

Best argument for evolution: We've seen it happen and verified it many times in other animals like flies, which have lifespans short enough and have enough offspring per generation that we can see it quickly. Human beings just don't change fast enough, but if we've seen other living beings evolve, why couldn't we have too?

Worst argument against evolution: It doesn't explain everything, so we can toss the whole theory out. (I imagine that's one of the fallacies you listed. Haven't checked the link yet).

[R0bb0b]

We've seen it happen and verified it many times in other animals like flies, which have lifespans short enough and have enough offspring per generation that we can see it quickly.

Can you provide a link?

[hughv]

Here you go:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/richard-dawkins.html

[vegaseat]

...
Something, or someone, had to create the universe -- it didn't just happen out of nothing. Even if you believe the Big Bang theory, someone had to create that mass that exploded.
...

In that line of thinking, who created the creator?

Big Bang only relates to the universe we know, and the tiny fraction of time we think we understand. Evolution is an event of time and time is endless.

[steven woodman]

Genes change from one generation to the next. That is evolution and that we know is a fact. The purpose of these genes changing through the random selection of genetic material in the gametes during meiosis occurs in order for life to survive. Without changing genes (or evolution) through successive generations, all offspring would be identical to there parents and therefore, unable to run faster, jump higher, think quicker etc. Being different from one another allows for survival of the fittest, in which case if a predator is faster, then the faster prey will survive and hence, be more likely to pass the gene which made it faster to its offspring. Eventually this will create a faster animal and through thousands of generations a new branch of the family which it originally came.

One major factor which causes these separations of genetic similarity, is segregation or separation from the same family. This can be caused by land forms or different migration patterns. Eventually one group of the same family would have to adapt to different surroundings through survival of the fittest and therefore become a dissimilar family.

These above statements do not take into account random genetic mutation, which may also cause variation in genetic make up from one generation to the next.

I, personally, think that to deny evolution is just ignorance. And remember, the route word of ignorance is "Ignore". To simply ignore things that are as plane as day doesn't make sense.

[William Hemsworth]

100 Reasons why Evolution is so stupid
Some good points are mentioned in this (rather long) video, but no where near enough to stop me believing in evolution :icon_cheesygrin: but personally, I dont think he knows what hes talking about 95% of the time :)

[steven woodman]

I got about two minutes into that video and i can think of 100 reasons he is stupid. Man some people just dont get it.

[VernonDozier]

Can you provide a link?

I can't really beat hughv's link, but here's one discussing fruit-flies' evolutionary immunity to DDT.

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/DDTResistant_Insects_Given_Genetic_Boost_That_Helps_Resistance_Spread.html

It's a perfect example of natural selection. If you're immune to DDT, you live and pass on the gene. If you're not, you die and you don't pass on the genes which are vulnerable to DDT. Same thing with the penicillin-resistant super-bacteria.

No reason to think human beings don't exhibit the same behavior, except on a lesser scale. I'm sure the 1918 flu epidemic caused us to be a much more resilient species, as did the Bubonic Plague earlier. People with weaker immune systems died and didn't pass their genes on. Those with stronger immune systems survived and had children.

[R0bb0b]

I can't really beat hughv's link, but here's one discussing fruit-flies' evolutionary immunity to DDT.

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/DDTResistant_Insects_Given_Genetic_Boost_That_Helps_Resistance_Spread.html

It's a perfect example of natural selection. If you're immune to DDT, you live and pass on the gene. If you're not, you die and you don't pass on the genes which are vulnerable to DDT. Same thing with the penicillin-resistant super-bacteria.

No reason to think human beings don't exhibit the same behavior, except on a lesser scale. I'm sure the 1918 flu epidemic caused us to be a much more resilient species, as did the Bubonic Plague earlier. People with weaker immune systems died and didn't pass their genes on. Those with stronger immune systems survived and had children.

I have no doubt that a species can become immune to a specific virus. But this is not proof of Evolution. According to evolutionists, it takes several thousands of years for a species to make drastic physical changes. For example, a fish to grow legs. Of course legs would not grow perfect initially because that is the nature of deformities, so they would have to be refined through generation to generation. But we are not talking about generation to generation, we are talking about 100s of generations to 100s of generations. And this process happens for every change a species goes through. I'm pretty sure that if this process happened for every single development in every species on the planet that it would be very evident through fossils and there would be no question. You would see steps in the Evolution chain because every single one of these changes requires thousands of years of development and the spawn of millions of species with that same deformity.

Since this the way Evolution works, species would be much more closely related then they are because of the statistical amount of spawn and time required between changes in the physical makeup of a species. You would not see fish and lizards, you would see fish, fish with legs, fish with tails, fish with legs and claws, lizards with fins, lizards with gills, fish with the ability to eat flies by flipping their tongue into the air like a frog, etc... Species and families of species would be much more closely related then they are now and it would be obvious to the standard intelligent human which path in the Evolution chain a species came from and Evolution would in fact be measurable like other scientific theories.

Because it is not so obvious, just saying that because flies and cockroaches can develop immunities is not saying that Evolution is a fact. It's not even coming close.

For this reason, the only difference that I see between Creationism and Evolution is the supernatural aspect, otherwise they are on the same level of improbability.

[Ezzaral]

For this reason, the only difference that I see between Creationism and Evolution is the supernatural aspect, otherwise they are on the same level of improbability.

Well, there's just a little bit more to it than that:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01
http://www.natcenscied.org/evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_misconceptions#Evolution
http://www.natcenscied.org/creationism

[jbennet]

Best argument for evolution: We've seen it happen and verified it many times in other animals like flies, which have lifespans short enough and have enough offspring per generation that we can see it quickly

Take antibiotic resistant bacteria. A random mutation in one bacteria turned out to be beneficial, so it didnt die when all its friends did, therefore it had a competitive edge and managed to outcompete them, hence the problems we now have with antibiotic resistant bacteria.

This is a good example of natural selection. survival of the fittest, and evolution, and its easy to see because said bacteria multiply extremely fast, so the chance of a benificial mutation is quite high.

[Lardmeister]

Take antibiotic resistant bacteria. A random mutation in one bacteria turned out to be beneficial, so it didnt die when all its friends did, therefore it had a competitive edge and managed to outcompete them, hence the problems we now have with antibiotic resistant bacteria.

This is a good example of natural selection. survival of the fittest, and evolution, and its easy to see because said bacteria multiply extremely fast, so the chance of a benificial mutation is quite high.

A good example of evolution over a very short time span! You also have to look at evolution over a very large time span, let's say 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000! light years. I propose that even GOD has evolved over such a long time. For worse or better, I don't know.

Note: Yes, that is meant to be a factorial.

[yunghove]

A good example of evolution over a very short time span! You also have to look at evolution over a very large time span, let's say 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000! light years. I propose that even GOD has evolved over such a long time. For worse or better, I don't know.

Note: Yes, that is meant to be a factorial.

Umm, not to be a Dic*, or anything, but Light years isnt measured in time...
Its measured in Distance. I'm confused, Im a cristian, but I beleive in Evolution @_@.

[hughv]

This is actually very simple.
The "Theory" of evolution is based on scientifically tested, and testable, evidence.There are flaws, and much remains to be learned, but evolution is a fact, and those who wish to explore the literature will soon come to that conclusion.
Those "against" evolution might just as well be "against" gravity. Over time, natural selection will weed these unfortunates from the gene pool (and the work force) and the rest of us can go about our business.

[yunghove]

This is actually very simple.
The "Theory" of evolution is based on scientifically tested, and testable, evidence.There are flaws, and much remains to be learned, but evolution is a fact, and those who wish to explore the literature will soon come to that conclusion.
Those "against" evolution might just as well be "against" gravity. Over time, natural selection will weed these unfortunates from the gene pool (and the work force) and the rest of us can go about our business.

Humans evolved(not saying from monkeys, just saying we evolved). Look back maybe 500 years, we didnt have electricity. Humans do evolve. If we didnt evolve, how come were so smart compared to 1000 years ago?

Plus everything is Fact. Fact is something that can be proven.

[jbennet]

evolution does NOT say that humans evolved from apes. Its a common misconception. What it says is that at some point, they had a commoin ancestor.

[steven woodman]

Thats right jbennet, but at some point every species on earth had a common ancestor.

I havent heard any (decent) arguments against evolution, but I think that would be expected since most people with any amount of education and reason can see the truth. Time = Change, whether it be the mountains on earth, formed through the forces of its core, or the traits we possess, formed through the forces of our core - DNA.

[Ancient Dragon]

You all can experiment with flies and mice all you want, but that proves nothing. How often have medical experiements on mice proven to be invalid in humans? I want to see you prove without a doubt that man evolved from monkey or that man and monkey had the same ansestor. If you can prove that then you will be in the textbooks forever.

[VernonDozier]

You all can experiment with flies and mice all you want, but that proves nothing. How often have medical experiements on mice proven to be invalid in humans? I want to see you prove without a doubt that man evolved from monkey or that man and monkey had the same ansestor. If you can prove that then you will be in the textbooks forever.

You are asking the impossible. We can't prove without a doubt that we all have the same ancestor as apes/monkeys, etc.. None of us was around then. We do the best we can with what we have, which is an awful lot (DNA, fossils, etc.), but it's not going to be perfect. If you are looking for absolute proof, you're not going to find it here and you're probably never going to find it anywhere. There have been some extremely bright people who have dedicated their entire lives to finding the proof, they've made some fantastic discoveries, but certainly no one could say that any of them have proved it. However, their work fills in more and more holes every year. They experiment on flies and mice and bacteria because they can't do those experiments on people and apes for ethical reasons and for the fact that apes and people change too darn slow to yield decent scientific results. Sometimes the findings are meaningful, sometimes they aren't. I'll grant you that often the fantastic therapies that cure mice don't do nearly as well on people, but then again, often they do because of common DNA, which suggests common ancestry to me.

The very recent years with all of the DNA mapping of apes, people, etc. show the amazing similarity in genes between all people, and between people and apes. I think it's in the 99%+ range, but don't quote me. Go higher up the chain to say, mammals, and we share an increasingly lesser percentage of genes, but still quite a lot. Proof, no. But pretty impressive.

[jbennet]

yeah a chimp has 99% similar DNA to a human

thats why its called a theory - because it is a hypothesis which is supported by evidence and observation and by applying scientific understanding. The difference between a theory and a law is that a law can be proven with certainty to be correct, whereas a theory cant.

we know natural selection exists because we have seen its evidence in fossils

e.g giraffes

Africa used to a jungle, and so giraffes had short necks for eating stuff on the ground
Then it became desertified and lots of trees died - of the tree that remained most were tall
Therefore the short giraffess died out and the genes for long necks got passed on
And so giraffes evolved to have long necks.

e.g it can also be seen in black africans.

a random mutation (genetic drift) in a protein caused certain people to be more resistant to malaria. So these people through natural selection (survival of the fittest) lived to pass on these genes as they didnt die from the malaria.

good example of human evolution. And this has happened in only a few thousand years.

[steven woodman]

The fact that everything has DNA is one very good piece of evidence supporting evolution.

If every animal was designed by some greater being and placed on earth to remain the same and not evolve then why wouldn't their have been civilized societies millions of years ago. Why do fossil records show patterns of change in animals which show gradual changing over time.

Just the plain fact that every animal has different DNA that give it individual traits, proves evolution enough for me.
If evolution didn't exist then we would all be identical, our DNA would not change and survival of the fittest would not occur. In order for life to continue on earth it must evolve. If not all life would have died out a long time ago.

Unless of course the "Super Being Planner" adjusts our DNA when necessary.

[steven woodman]

A couple of good points j. I would also like to point to the large nostrils of Africans. Hotter air contains less oxygen and a larger orifice in which to take in air would become predominant because it suits the environment. The same goes for the Inuit of the north. They need less air because of greater oxygen content and small nostrils help for not letting as much cold into the body, therefore maintaining internal temperatures. Another evolution of the Innu, is there tolerance to cold and frostbite. Scientific studies have been proven that they have a much greater tolerance to cold then would someone of the south.

The Innu didn't go north because of these traits. The trait became dominant in the population because it helped them to survive.

[grumpier]

My case in support of evolution is much simpler. And it works whether the creationists are right or not. ;)

1) If there is no creator, then things must have evolved somehow.

2) No intelligent creator will just build everything first go: there will be trial runs, false starts, starting over, etc. That is evolution!

No need to prove that people are descended from apes (although a lot of people provide strong evidence in support of this).

The only thing needed to disprove my theory is proof of the existence of a creator and then proof that creator does everything on the first go.

[VernonDozier]

My case in support of evolution is much simpler. And it works whether the creationists are right or not. ;)

1) If there is no creator, then things must have evolved somehow.

2) No intelligent creator will just build everything first go: there will be trial runs, false starts, starting over, etc. That is evolution!

No need to prove that people are descended from apes (although a lot of people provide strong evidence in support of this).

The only thing needed to disprove my theory is proof of the existence of a creator and then proof that creator does everything on the first go.

Premise 2 is flawed because you are neglecting one of the main premises of those who believe in Creationism. God is perfect, all-powerful, all-knowing. Thus unlike when we mere mortals create something, there will be no false starts, no trial runs will be needed, no starting over, since He'll have been able to predict everything and do everything right the first time. No need to evolve, no need to improve, no need for all of the randomness and wastefulness of an imperfect process of evolution. So if "the creationists are right", God would get it right on the first try.

That actually leads to something else. Why would such an unflawed Creator create such flawed creations?

[jbennet]

as i said in the god thread, maybe god is the kid with the magnifying glass and we are the ants ;) maybe he just gets some sort of pleasure from watching us

[Ancient Dragon]

You are asking the impossible. We can't prove without a doubt that we all have the same ancestor as apes/monkeys, etc.. None of us was around then. .

That is exactly my point. Until evolution can be proven it will remain just another theory. Sure there is lots of evidence that points to evolution, but we all know what false evidence proved :) For those who may not know, the attached thumnail is a vamous (to us Americans) picture of newly elected President Truman holding the front page of a major US newspaper that said Dewey won.

[grumpier]

Premise 2 is flawed because you are neglecting one of the main premises of those who believe in Creationism. God is perfect, all-powerful, all-knowing. Thus unlike when we mere mortals create something, there will be no false starts, no trial runs will be needed, no starting over, since He'll have been able to predict everything and do everything right the first time. No need to evolve, no need to improve, no need for all of the randomness and wastefulness of an imperfect process of evolution. So if "the creationists are right", God would get it right on the first try.

If you read my post again, you will see that I did not claim my theory is proven. I noted the way to disprove my theory is to prove the existence of a creator, and then prove that creator does not require evolution. You are asserting that is the case, not offering proof. Offer proof of your assertion, and I will concede my theory is incorrect. Otherwise, I will maintain that it is not disproven.

That actually leads to something else. Why would such an unflawed Creator create such flawed creations?

If you prove the existence of such an unflawed creator, you will have disproved my theory and you will also have the option of finding and asking her. :icon_lol: