Debate Topic

[Hero of Trains]

Yes, of course. It is the answer to life, the universe, and everything.

[Pianist Da Sootopolis]

A fictional book said it, so it must be true 
Question: Do you accept evolution? If not, why don't you, especially considering most modern scientists in their fields have long since accepted it as near fact?

[Maelstrom]

Not entirely.
The adaptation and natural selection parts are scientifically confirmed and observed, but I disagree with the adding entirely new genetic code part. It's just the whole idea of something from nothing and the fact that they can only come from random mutations, which are extremely unlikely in the first place, and have such a low chance of actually helping an organism.

[Sebastian]

Not entirely.
The adaptation and natural selection parts are scientifically confirmed and observed, but I disagree with the adding entirely new genetic code part. It's just the whole idea of something from nothing and the fact that they can only come from random mutations, which are extremely unlikely in the first place, and have such a low chance of actually helping an organism.

I agree.

Good job so far guys! Let's try to keep this chill as possible.

[MaestroUGC]

Anywho, I would like to get this topic back up and running but with some major changes. We our going to have formal debates here only and focus on 1 topic at a time. This will keep it professional, safe, and most of all, flame warless. We will hopefully get started sometime soon.
Could I get a mod to delete all the posts in this topic (except the OP) so we can have a fresh and realistic start? When I originally made this, it was more of a joke so it is best to start over.

Instead of doing that just make a new thread and I'll lock this one.

[Waddle Bro]

Y'all using the "I'm denying it because science can't explain it" argument especially even though you're in the christian faith so it seems pretty hypocritical to be denying the chance for knowledge

ninja'd

[Ruto]

Y'all using the "I'm denying it because science can't explain it" argument especially even though you're in the christian faith so it seems pretty hypocritical to be denying the chance for knowledge

ninja'd

Science didn't deny the mutation thing though: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html One of the mutations that happen during DNA replication is actually inserting a base pair. It would take a lot to produce something noticeable, but the magic of breeding/replicating like crazy...>_> and a few trillion cells multiplying in each human of course.

Whole index

[Sebastian]

Instead of doing that just make a new thread and I'll lock this one.

That's ok. We will just use this one I guess

[Dudeman]

The main problem with the theory of evolution is that at the core of the theory is the assumption that an animal can mutate to the point where it becomes its own species. This, by the natural selection argument, could never be possible. Two animals of different species can never produce fertile offspring. Mules and ligers, for example, can never have baby mules or baby ligers because they are hybrid animals. So, if an animal did get to the point where it mutated into its own species, it would no longer be able to produce fertile offspring. But according to natural selection, only good mutations should pass on. Not being able to reproduce seems like a pretty terrible mutation, don't you think? The mutant would then die off, and no species changes would ever take place, leaving a world full of one species of animal.

Of course, we know that's not the case.

[Jamaha]

The main problem with the theory of evolution is that at the core of the theory is the assumption that an animal can mutate to the point where it becomes its own species. This, by the natural selection argument, could never be possible. Two animals of different species can never produce fertile offspring. Mules and ligers, for example, can never have baby mules or baby ligers because they are hybrid animals. So, if an animal did get to the point where it mutated into its own species, it would no longer be able to produce fertile offspring. But according to natural selection, only good mutations should pass on. Not being able to reproduce seems like a pretty terrible mutation, don't you think? The mutant would then die off, and no species changes would ever take place, leaving a world full of one species of animal.

Of course, we know that's not the case.

You make the mistake of assuming that evolution happens instantly. That's wrong. It's a slow process. An animal doesn't just suddenly mutate into a new species.

For example, let's assume a species that has grey fur. Two groups of said species move to different environments. The first group moves to an environment that is entirely white. The other moves to an environment that is black. Eventually one of the animals in the white environment has a mutation that causes its fur to become slightly lighter. Now, being able to hide in their environment is an advantage for an animal. And as it turns out, this animal does not get eaten because it is more difficult to detect in the environment. This happy fellow then lives and reproduces, with this advantageous mutation being passed on to the next generation. Then in the next generation another specimen develops even lighter fur. And so on.

Fast-forward several generations and you have one group of animals with black fur and another with white. Now this is not limited to just the color of the fur, there are other advantageous mutations occurring in the species as well. The two groups do not mate with each other so the new genes are only propagating within one group. Eventually the two groups are genetically so different that they can no longer reproduce. If the required advantages in the two environments differ, you end up with two completely different kinds of animals.

When it comes to the life on earth, we are talking about millions of years here. That is a damn long time for random mutations to occur and cause species to diverge from each other.

[Maelstrom]

That is a superb example of microevolution, not macroevolution.
I know it takes "a long time" to get anything beyond fur color, but nothing beyond that ever seems to be discussed.
Despite those two groups of species looking different and further differentiating themselves from each other, wouldn't they still have the same number of chromosomes? (correct me if I'm wrong. I haven't taken bio in some time)

[Waddle Bro]

Science didn't deny the mutation thing though: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html One of the mutations that happen during DNA replication is actually inserting a base pair. It would take a lot to produce something noticeable, but the magic of breeding/replicating like crazy...>_> and a few trillion cells multiplying in each human of course.

Whole index

Yeah fren but I never said anything about that science didn't deny that, just that they did

[ThatGamer]

Animals can't turn into other animals, they are made to just walk the earth as a single species unless you are a turtle in which case you could become a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle

[Jamaha]

That is a superb example of microevolution, not macroevolution.
I know it takes "a long time" to get anything beyond fur color, but nothing beyond that ever seems to be discussed.
Despite those two groups of species looking different and further differentiating themselves from each other, wouldn't they still have the same number of chromosomes? (correct me if I'm wrong. I haven't taken bio in some time)

Chromosomes can split or merge. In many cases this is fatal or results in infertility but sometimes the specimen can actually reproduce. That change can also propagate in the species and eventually become prevalent.

An important factor to keep in mind that not every mutation has to be beneficial. It could have no practical effect on the specimen and still propagate by chance. Thus diverging the two groups even further. Again, time scale of thousands or millions of years.

Also, don't focus just on the fur color but the many changes that can occur. Maybe there are different sources of food in the two environments and adapting to a specific diet gives the species bigger chance of survival. Maybe one group lives near water and changes that improve swimming become beneficial. What is something "beyond the fur color" you are referring to?

[Maelstrom]

Chromosomes can split or merge. In many cases this is fatal or results in infertility but sometimes the specimen can actually reproduce. That change can also propagate in the species and eventually become prevalent.

Thank you for that.

Anyway, I'm referring to the more hyperspecialized animals that need multiple mutations simultaneously. Like, say, for example, the woodpecker.

Again, I never said anything about natural selection being false. On the contrary, I quite agree with it. It's just the "where does all this ridiculously specialized DNA come from" thing, if that makes any sense.