Debate Topic

[MaestroUGC]

You argument seems to rely  solely on "I cannot see it, so it can't happen".

[SlowPokemon]

That's kind of ironic considering the fundamentals of any religion.

[Pianist Da Sootopolis]

That's what I was thinking too. Why not have faith in evolution and not religion? XD

[SlowPokemon]

you know, i actually regret getting involved. I'm going to avoid this topic from now on. It makes me upset and kind of negative.

[Pianist Da Sootopolis]

For some reason the first thing that popped into my imagination was Dude saying something like "PDS agrees with me therefore I'm wrong".

[SlowPokemon]

No, that's not it at all. I just have been pretty positive about NSM for the first time in a while and I'm worried these conversations are making everyone here (including me) more negative about one another.

[Sebastian]

you know, i actually regret getting involved. I'm going to avoid this topic from now on. It makes me upset and kind of negative.

[FireArrow]

You can't compare this to the evolution of animals. An animal does not "gradually" change its species. There is absolutely no evidence for this. Speciation has not occurred in recorded history. No animal is no longer able to breed today with something today that it was able to breed with a few thousand years ago.
Unless you'd like to show me an animal that is currently undergoing speciation, in which case, be my guest.
And last time I checked, flashlights don't produce offspring.

Yes, it does gradually change its species, saying it doesn't shows you don't understand how evolution works on a large time scale. Also, we have plenty of genetic evidence that speciation has occurred. Is the idea of common ancestors so absurd that saying "god, for an undeclared reason, decided to create another species that shares 99% of our DNA" makes more sense to you? If he created something evidently so similar to us, wouldn't he at least make note of it in the bible, but I digress.

So...basically you're saying that we need more time and any evidence there may be is too far back in the past to observe.


That doesn't sound like science to me.

EDIT:We can observe gravity in action. We cannot observe evolution in action.

But we can observe things that suggest evolution exists. Sure, we can't recreate speciation of mammals in a lab nor do we entirely understand every in and out of evolution, but it literally explains everything we know about biology near perfectly. Maybe new evidence will lead us to a new theory, but that's extremely unlikely at this point.

Compare that to creationism, which has no observable evidence whatsoever. Just whatever religious text you choose to believe in. Why should you chose the latter over the former?

[Ruto]

So...basically you're saying that we need more time and any evidence there may be is too far back in the past to observe.


That doesn't sound like science to me.

EDIT:We can observe gravity in action. We cannot observe evolution in action.

For the third time, FRUIT FLIES. And pretty much any fast-reproducing insect. Don't lecture scientists (who wrote the page) about science. (And me, to some extent).

you know, i actually regret getting involved. I'm going to avoid this topic from now on. It makes me upset and kind of negative.

I also don't see the point of typing detailed responses at all, because it's in one ear and out the other. There are so many good sources and readings everywhere online these days and people just want to read the ones that agree with them. That's not counting how people think they can debate science.

[blueflower999]

Science has honestly become the religion of today in more ways than one, but especially in the sense that if you question it you'll be attacked by the inquisition.

[Dudeman]

Have the fruit flies changed species? Have they? No. They have not. Microevolution absolutely exists. Adaptation absolutely exists. Natural Selection, in terms of animals with superior genetics surviving and passing those genes on, absolutely exists. I have not denied that. What you are failing to see is that those adaptations, however major, do not affect the animal's species in the slightest. Macroevolution does not exist. Period. There is no evidence that adaptations cause an animal to change its species. What the heck does "gradually changing species" even mean? Is there a type of animal that is simultaneously two different species? When an animal reproduces, does it ever give birth to something that isn't its own species? If not, how the hell do "gradual" species changes take place? Does a population wake up one morning to discover that its species has changed? And you can't treat a population like a single organism. That's ridiculous. An organism mutates. An entire population does not.

And saying that my not seeing=not believing is ridiculous backfires, because that's the definition of science. Science, as defined by the Oxford American Dictionary, is "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment." I cannot see gravity. I cannot see the wind. I cannot see individual atoms. But I can run experiments and take measurable observations to determine that these things exist. You cannot do that with evolution. You cannot observe it. You cannot run an experiment to prove it exists. That's what scientists have been doing with the fruit flies for generations. And guess what? No new species of fruit fly. It takes more faith to believe that evolution occurred than to believe in intelligent design. That's it. That's all there is to it. And unless someone presents to me an observed instance of macroevolution, which is measurable and repeatable in a controlled setting, no one will convince me otherwise. *mic drop*

[FireArrow]

@Blue
If you provide scientists with good evidence suggesting evolution is wrong, they'll be estatic. Science wants to know how the world works, so if evolution is a flawed theory, the scientific community would want to know. The rejection of any contrary evidence/viewpoint is unique to religion.

That's all there is to it. And unless someone presents to me an observed instance of macroevolution, which is measurable and repeatable in a controlled setting, no one will convince me otherwise. *mic drop*

Is that really the reason evolution isn't convincing to you? Let's find out!

Sheep can no longer breed with mouflons, the species they were derived from via artificial selection and selective breeding.

The fruitflies are an example of speciation in process. As in, while still being able to produce viable offspring, a species becomes sexually isolated or the hybrid offspring cannot survive due to natural selection. If given enough time, yes, they will speciate. This is where my analogy of flashlights come in, just because there's an arbitrary point where classifications change does not mean that the change is sudden.

[MaestroUGC]

That's the thing, there isn't one "single point" where something stops being Species A and starts being Species B, because that is not how evolution is described to work. Others have gone in depth at how evolution actually works, but you seem to be obsessed with notion that "dogs were always dogs because they couldn't have gathered million of successive genetic traits that would've lent them to become said dogs."

Evolution is the cumulative effects of these mutations that render certain sub-set of species to be incompatible with one another, so instead of "Group A" just turning into "Group B" in a purely isolated environment, which Earth is not, it's more like:

"Group A" has a mouth that can eat.
-One particular creature (A-001) in "Group A" has mutated a bigger mouth to eat more food. It survives.
-A-001 reproduces and bear 5 offspring with big mouths and 3 with small mouths. The small ones can't eat as much food, so they reproduce less than the ones with big mouths. Big Mouth gene passes on.
-Small mouths reproduce and one has a mutation that helps it swim faster. Faster movement means it can cover greater ground, more food it can find and eat. It bears offspring. Big mouths continue to reproduce, but don't need the ability to move faster.
-SM-FS (Small Mouth-Fast Swimmers) find they can eat better in packs, and their small size (let's assume 6 inches in length) allows them to swim relatively undetected by bigger creatures. BM-SS (Big Mouth-Slow Swimmers) Stay single hunters. As a result Group A starts a subtle division in eating habits. They continue to reproduce.
-The SM-FS keep the evolutionary trait of small size-big speed, as the environment allows them to do so, so they continue to evolve various traits that cater to that. The BM-SS behave similarly, and gradually grow bigger in size and traits that allow them to eat bigger food. Group A effectively splits into Group B (small and fast) and Group C (big and slow) since the two developed eating/hunting habits that are not alike.
-The two groups keep reproducing, further developing their respective advantageous traits. Group B stays relatively small, keep moving fast in the water and eat tiny things; Group C keep growing and take on bigger prey as time goes on, further increasing their size. The two Groups keep drifting apart on the food chain.
-Eventually Group C gains a predator that favors the smaller, leaner of the group, so the keep traits that keeps them big and bulky. Group B keeps doing its thing.
-The smaller members of Group C find they have a better chance at survival in deeper, darker waters, so they stay down there. However, due to the limited light, the ones who can see better tend to survive and pass on the trait of being able to see in low light. The larger members of Group C keep on their path and grow bigger. Group B keeps doing its thing.
-This carries as Group C begins to divide as half the group stays in the dark water and develop traits not advantageous to higher waters. The low light makes it harder to hunt, but some of the sub-group can attract pray because its skin is more reflective of the minimal light, attracting prey. Such reflective skin only attracts predators in higher waters, so Group C splits into Group D and Group E; with the former on the same evolutionary path of overwhelming size, the latter favoring the darkness. Group B keeps doing its thing.
-Note: This is still all taking place in the same environment; underwater.
-Group B and Group D have essentially found a winning formula for survival but they have some wild differences. Group B has stayed around the same size (6 in), perhaps even gotten smaller as that's a favorable trait for their survival; as such they'd likely be bottom feeders and eat the smallest of sea life. Group D has favored bulk and kept growing over the generations; as such they'd either need to eat subsequently bigger prey, or eat large amounts of smaller prey constantly. These differences alone would render them in separate classes on the food chain, and the sheer logistics would render mating between the two highly improbable, if not outright impossible. On top of that the two would have genetic traits that are not useful for the other, and biological instinct would prevent them from even trying to mate with each other. In addition to that their genetic code is likely too different to make mating successful in the first place.
-Meanwhile, if any species from Group A survived all this time, it would be an evolutionary relic having none of the advantages gained over the millennia from the other groups and would likely make it only compatible with Group B, it's closest relative. The most likely out come is it would have died off.
-Group E, on the other hand, has moved to an entirely new environment, out of the bright shallow waters and into the dark depths. It's likely to never interact with Groups B and D, and as such is set on an entirely different evolutionary path from them.

That is how evolution works. It's several changes that happen in concert that drive groups of species apart from one another. The above was only dealing with dietary habits. That doesn't take into account: the ability to see prey/predators, distinct hunting/gathering methods, the ability to manipulate the environment for survival purposes, problem solving skills, defensive capabilities, environmental adaptions, locomotion.

Evolution isn't "one thing turning into another" it's "the world entire adapting to its own changes." Evolution isn't a single focus of one species at a time, it's everything changing alongside each other at all times. And it goes beyond animals and extends into plant life as well. Plants don't want to be eaten, they're living things and most living things want to keep living. Trees are tall and wide so they can both take in more light and not get eating be ground-bound animals. Certain mushrooms are poisonous due to chemical evolution resulting in certain groups surviving because they weren't eaten, while other animals built up a tolerance to said poison. So it went since the first photosynthetic single celled organisms and so it will continue until life leaves this rock or everything dies out due to the Sun being a dick and burning everything.

[mikey]

The world is probably enough evidence for a God to exist yet people decide to ignore that evidence
why can't I ignore your holy textbooks

[FireArrow]

wat