Evolutionary debate

Evolution

  • Belive in evolution

  • Don't belive in evolution


Results are only viewable after voting.

pgp_protector

Noted strange person
Dec 17, 2003
51,660
17,588
55
Earth For Now
Visit site
✟390,064.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I'm a biologist, and i don't believe in evolution. I'm new here, but i would suggest you evolutionists learn how to debate instead of resorting to your usual logical fallacies. I also started a thread, inviting any evolutionist to debate me on biology (or another scientific area).

There is simply no evidence for evolution and the 'supposed' evidence always is debunked by us creationists.:cool:

First, what's your definition of Evolution?
 
Upvote 0

sandwiches

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.
Jun 16, 2009
6,104
124
45
Dallas, Texas
✟22,030.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I'm a biologist, and i don't believe in evolution. I'm new here, but i would suggest you evolutionists learn how to debate instead of resorting to your usual logical fallacies. I also started a thread, inviting any evolutionist to debate me on biology (or another scientific area).

There is simply no evidence for evolution and the 'supposed' evidence always is debunked by us creationists.:cool:

This is very timely for me. Just last weekend I was talking to a friend of mine who's a biology professor in the University of Texas in Arlington. He was telling me about the surprisingly high number of biology majors grads and undergrads who do not accept evolution. Of course, when trying to tie together everything about biology, they fail without evolution.
 
Upvote 0
Feb 27, 2010
17
1
✟186.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
First, what's your definition of Evolution?

''A gradual process in which something changes into a different form.''

Or

''Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations.''

Niether have been observed.
 
Upvote 0
Feb 27, 2010
17
1
✟186.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Foiled again. Drat.

BTW, how would a creationist debunk, say, ERV's?

What about ERV's is 'evidence' for the theory of evolution? From what i've read, most Intelligent Design advocates are using ERV's for their evidence, not evolutionists.
 
Upvote 0

laconicstudent

Well-Known Member
Sep 25, 2009
11,671
720
✟16,224.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
What about ERV's is 'evidence' for the theory of evolution? From what i've read, most Intelligent Design advocates are using ERV's for their evidence, not evolutionists.

You claim to have PhD in biology, but you have to ask us what an endogenous retrovirus is?
 
Upvote 0

sandwiches

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.
Jun 16, 2009
6,104
124
45
Dallas, Texas
✟22,030.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
What about ERV's is 'evidence' for the theory of evolution? From what i've read, most Intelligent Design advocates are using ERV's for their evidence, not evolutionists.

*facepalm*
 
Upvote 0

united4Peace

Contributor
Jun 28, 2006
7,226
742
Alberta
✟18,723.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Private
''A gradual process in which something changes into a different form.''

Or

''Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations.''

Niether have been observed.

Cells are always changing...
I hate Biology, however I need to study it and from what I understand biologists have proof that cells change...
Would that not be a gradual process of something changing?
 
Upvote 0

firechild_82

Newbie
Jan 6, 2010
129
6
✟15,289.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
AU-Liberals
''A gradual process in which something changes into a different form.''

Or

''Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations.''

Niether have been observed.

You mean, no evidence of either has been posted on any of the creationist websites you frequent?

I'm sure the nylon-eating bacteria example is not something creationists like to discuss but it is a clear cut example of your second definition.

Have you come across the E. coli experiment?
 
Upvote 0
Feb 27, 2010
17
1
✟186.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Have you come across the e. coli experiment?

Lenski has refused to release details on his 'bacteria mutation' to public, and his peer-reviewed paper (2008) has also been rejected, or atleast questioned because of it's flaws.

Can't (yet) paste links showing where all this is listed. However looking up the net, ''Flaws in Richard Lenski Study'' will show the basics.

The E.Coli experiment remains controversial, Lenski is clearly a deceitful character and his work has been proven to contain flaws, he also failed to provide data to the public for his claims.
 
Upvote 0

laconicstudent

Well-Known Member
Sep 25, 2009
11,671
720
✟16,224.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Lenski has refused to release details on his 'bacteria mutation' to public,

1. Yes he has. You can look everything up in his papers. He made even more information available on his website.

and his peer-reviewed paper (2008) has also been rejected,

It hasn't. That is simply untrue.

or atleast questioned because of it's flaws.

The only one's who questioned it were Conservapedia, who made themselves the laughing stock of the scientific community and Western society at large by demanding that Lenski send them bacterial specimens and demonstrating that they had not the faintest clue how to read a scientific study.

Can't (yet) paste links showing where all this is listed. However looking up the net, ''Flaws in Richard Lenski Study'' will show the basics.

Was it written by a microbiologist, or anyone with a PhD in the sciences? No? Then I really can't be bothered.

The E.Coli experiment remains controversial,

Actually, it isn't.

Lenski is clearly a deceitful character

And yet, he has exceeded all ethical standards by going and posting even more information about his methods on his website, and making his study free for everyone to download from the PNAS, just to prove his integrity.

and his work has been proven to contain flaws,

Really? I wasn't aware that the PNAS had published anything of the sort. Citation please.

he also failed to provide data to the public for his claims.

Sorry, but he actually did

E. coli Long-term Experimental Evolution Project Site

^_^
 
  • Like
Reactions: plindboe
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Nostromo

Brian Blessed can take a hike
Nov 19, 2009
2,343
56
Yorkshire
✟17,838.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
''Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations.''
Strictly speaking, doesn't that happen in pretty much every case? My generation is not genetically identical to my father's.
 
Upvote 0
Feb 27, 2010
17
1
✟186.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Strictly speaking, doesn't that happen in pretty much every case? My generation is not genetically identical to my father's.

Is it not evolutionists who say:

''99.9% of humans are DNA identical''

''Humans share 97% DNA with Chimps''

''We all bleed red''

Yet now you guys are saying Humans are totally different to each other?

:confused:
 
Upvote 0

laconicstudent

Well-Known Member
Sep 25, 2009
11,671
720
✟16,224.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Is it not evolutionists who say:

''99.9% of humans are DNA identical''

''Humans share 97% DNA with Chimps''

''We all bleed red''

Yet now you guys are saying Humans are totally different to each other?

:confused:

The diversity in the human species is due to less then .1% of genetic variation, obviously....
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟31,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Is it not evolutionists who say:

''99.9% of humans are DNA identical''

''Humans share 97% DNA with Chimps''

''We all bleed red''

Yet now you guys are saying Humans are totally different to each other?

:confused:
False dichotomy. Pointing out that we're not genetically identical to each other isn't the same as saying we're completely different: we are, obviously, extremely similar, but we differ in subtle (but significant) ways. A slightly different shape to a protein here, a mildly longer gene expression there, and you have your small, but significant, variation. It's enough for evolution to work.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

LifeToTheFullest!

Well-Known Member
May 12, 2004
5,069
155
✟6,295.00
Faith
Agnostic
False dichotomy. Pointing out that we're not genetically identical to each other isn't the same as saying we're completely different: we are, obviously, extremely similar, but we differ in subtle (but significant) ways. A slightly different shape to a protein here, a mildly longer gene expression there, and you have your small, but significant, variation. It's enough for evolution to work.
Bingo!
 
Upvote 0

Nostromo

Brian Blessed can take a hike
Nov 19, 2009
2,343
56
Yorkshire
✟17,838.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
''Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations.''
Niether have been observed.
Yet now you guys are saying Humans are totally different to each other?
If you take "not identical" to mean "totally different". That's probably not the most faithful interpretation I've seen.

You got to provide your own definition of evolution and it's quite obvious just from looking around at other people that the criteria have been met, how about a retraction?
 
Upvote 0

plindboe

Senior Member
Feb 29, 2004
1,965
157
46
In my pants
✟10,498.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Lenski has refused to release details on his 'bacteria mutation' to public, and his peer-reviewed paper (2008) has also been rejected, or atleast questioned because of it's flaws.

Can't (yet) paste links showing where all this is listed. However looking up the net, ''Flaws in Richard Lenski Study'' will show the basics.

The E.Coli experiment remains controversial, Lenski is clearly a deceitful character and his work has been proven to contain flaws, he also failed to provide data to the public for his claims.

Conservapedia:Lenski dialog - Conservapedia

I highly recommend this exchange to anyone. Lenski's impression of these creationists' tactics are well in line with my own impression of how creationists tend to operate. They seem to form very strong opinions and claim "hoax" and "fraud" without even having read the research in question. They show severe misunderstandings and ignorance of the science, and still pretend like they're experts, demanding to be taken seriously and demanding data, that they wouldn't know what to do with even if they saw it.

Peter :)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,058
16,810
Dallas
✟870,741.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
''A gradual process in which something changes into a different form.''

Define "form".

What about ERV's is 'evidence' for the theory of evolution? From what i've read, most Intelligent Design advocates are using ERV's for their evidence, not evolutionists.

You're kidding us right? If you're going to play a PhD biologist, you need to at least have some grounding actual biology.

Can't (yet) paste links showing where all this is listed. However looking up the net, ''Flaws in Richard Lenski Study'' will show the basics.
Was it written by a microbiologist, or anyone with a PhD in the sciences? No? Then I really can't be bothered.

It looks like it was written by Schlaffley or his minions. The only Google hit for that particular phrase shows up on Conservapedia.
 
Upvote 0