Best arguments for/against evolution!

[juvenissun]

Sorry, wrong.

We evolved to be social creatures and this means, getting along with others.

You see, any normal person has evolved to understand; if I go around killing people, good chance I am going to tick some people off and someone could come and kill me.

See how that works?

No no. We are social and we know love. This PROVES that we are NOT evolved.

 

[variant]

Survival instinct.

Don't be hypocritically surprised. You know what I said is true.

It gives you just as much reason to cooperate and form societies to survive. More so since you are a social animal (the human). You are just seeing it in a negative light.

 

[variant]

No no. We are social and we know love. This PROVES that we are NOT evolved.

No, it proves you don't understand evolutionary theory.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

In terms of evolution, what is wrong with it? Don't talk about love. It does not exist in evolution.

Because it destroys ecosystem? Animals innately know to eat what they should and not kill all they want. You wipe out an entire layer of ecosystem and you can destroy the whole thing.

Now Survival of the fittest simply refers to survival and being fit to. If you and your buddy are trapped in a snowstorm with the same exact gear. One of you has a severe asthma attack and the other doesn't. Guess who's not fit enough to survive there.

So take that scenario and apply it. It just means being fit enough to survive in your current surrounding environment. If you're not, you're going to die. Murder has zero to do with it.

 

[Wryetui]

The scientific community is not your best back up to say evolution is false. They have been saying it is definitely true for over 100 years.

Also what you said earlier about saying you believe God created life, that is not necessarily contradictory with the theory of evolution, as evolution deals with the idea of how species change over time.

Well I do believe species change over time, since God created us to now they had to change. God allowed them to, because they needed to adapt to the new conditions of the climates or the zones they were living.

 

[TillICollapse]

Well I do believe species change over time, since God created us to now they had to change. God allowed them to, because they needed to adapt to the new conditions of the climates or the zones they were living.

So then it seems you acknowledge evolution, as well as natural selection as a mechanism and adaptation, with a belief in creationism (perhaps Evolutionary Creationism) ...

 

[DogmaHunter]

Every piece of scientific information ever said by scientists is ultimately wrong. That is the nature of science. How can you trust what scientist says?

I don't trust what anyone says. I trust what they can show and explain.

In contrast, it is much more important to focus on what YOU would say. If you said that evolution is proven, then you need to have it pass through YOUR mind, instead of the mind of scientist.

I'ld say that that is a terrible piece of advice.
If I would generalise that rule, i'ld have no reason to go see a doctor. I'ld just diagnose myself (and get it wrong and then die).

Have YOU ever taken a good look on ANY of the so-called "evidence"?

I've been to high school. So.... yes.
I've also co-authored a .net optimization framework, which included a module using genetic algorithms.

I bet you, if you do, you will find out it does not work.

You lose that bet.

 

[High Fidelity]

Thats not an argument. Its a matter of faith. That's fine. But lets call it what it is.

It's no more a matter of faith than the indeterminate and fluid nature of scientific 'fact'.

 

[durangodawood]

It's no more a matter of faith than the indeterminate and fluid nature of scientific 'fact'.

Scientific facts arise from evidence and reasoning. And so, right or wrong, you can actually argue about them.

But a presentation based strictly on faith is never an argument. Its a testimony.

 

[variant]

Well I do believe species change over time, since God created us to now they had to change. God allowed them to, because they needed to adapt to the new conditions of the climates or the zones they were living.

OK so where is the disagreement? Do you not like the idea of common decent or something?

If your problem is with the theory of abiogenesis (where the first life came from) then it's not evolutionary theory you have a problem with.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You may only say it is a model waiting to be proven.

No, evolution is among the most, if not the most, established theories in all of science. There is no way around that without denying/ignoring reality.

Also, no model in science is ever considered to be "proven".
Science doesn't deal in absolutes.

Evidences are just evidences. They do not prove anything.

They support.
The more you have of it, the stronger your case is.

In case of evolution, there is so much of it that still denying it would be like insisting that the sky looks yellow instead of blue.

Like I said, if you looking into any one of them in detail, it always has BIG problems.

I'll just skip over the emphasis of "big"...

But that's why we still train scientists. We have a lot left to learn.
So pointing out that we don't know everything is nothing more then stating the obvious.


Last but not least, none of the ideas you express here are a good reason to drop science or simply start ignoring it. You have no alternative to gather knowledge. And, be honest here, looking at science as you know seem to suggest one should do, will ONLY lead to misery.

You'll be propelled back 400 years, where people died at 28 on average from a common simple cold or flu or whatever.

It really sounds to me that you haven't thought this through at all.
The reasons you give for why one shouldn't "believe" evolution, doesn't just apply to evolution only. It applies to all of science.

So I wonder what you would suggest we should do instead of investigating the world using science....

 

[DogmaHunter]

No no. We are social and we know love. This PROVES that we are NOT evolved.

Please explain how you get from:

"we are social and know love"

to

"therefor not evolved"

 

[bhsmte]

No no. We are social and we know love. This PROVES that we are NOT evolved.

How does it prove we are not evolved?

 

[bhsmte]

It's no more a matter of faith than the indeterminate and fluid nature of scientific 'fact'.

There is a difference and it is a big one and that difference is driven by objective evidence.

 

[juvenissun]

How does it prove we are not evolved?

One of my favorite evidence is that human is the only life form who knows how to use fire.

 

[juvenissun]

... which included a module using genetic algorithms.

Do you want to take a look at that? I say that any genetic algorithm is only a tunnel view of evolution. any of those conclusions does not really happen in nature.

 

[bhsmte]

One of my favorite evidence is that human is the only life form who knows how to use fire.

Evolving to have a bigger brain will do that.

We are the only life form that plays baseball too.

 

[juvenissun]

So I wonder what you would suggest we should do instead of investigating the world using science....

Science is only a training program for human. It is not a tool to find the truth.

 

[BL2KTN]

I don't find your words to be meaningful or communicative.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

Science is only a training program for human. It is not a tool to find the truth.

uh I dunno. I can give a list of "truths" it has given us and they shape your daily life. This forum here on the internet.

Truth: The internet creates the opportunity of networking and allows greater human contact than ever before. Creating newer ways to link with people across the world and form bonds and communities of sorts.