Best arguments for/against evolution!

[OldWiseGuy]

Okay I will dial it back. But seriously in my experience discussing the subject I haven't gotten one counter argument that didn't involve murdering someone in order to survive and claiming it to be "survival of the fittest." I know it doesn't describe every theist as there are some who understand and accept evolution. So yes, I do apologize.

But It's super childish and very frustrating to re-read this shoddy argument over and over and over and over. And Hitler is like Obligatory to bring up too. I'm so annoyed by this that yes, briefly I broke my normal neutral composure.

Ya has ta undastand. I gots ma limits.

You have mellowed considerably since your earlier posts.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

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.

Such creativity is evidence that we are like God the creator, who made us kindasorta like himself. Even scientists evidence this attribute.

 

[TheImmortalJellyfish]

Everything else has evolved based on survival of animals in their environment. Humans have supposedly evolved to be....social. Loving. Artistic. Aware of our own mortality. Able to contemplate concepts such as eternity. We didn't evolve tails that aid us in balance - apparently, we lost 'em. Claws and teeth that aid us in self-defense, extra joints, bigger muscles for improved mobility, etc...evolution emphatically points out how animals thrive in their environment due to such physical "changes over time", however any correlation to humans and the evolution of their mental capacity over time is guesswork at best. Animals are naked for all intents and purposes with fur, feathers, scales, etc, which help them camouflage against their environment. Take a naked human and throw it into a jungle, and he's basically a big weak meat lozenge which can't run very well, has no self-defense against claws or teeth, no venom, no ability to blend into environment, NOTHING.

And we have evolved...?

All arguments I've seen for human evolution when confronted with such concepts don't seem to make much sense.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

Such creativity is evidence that we are like God the creator, who made us kindasorta like himself. Even scientists evidence this attribute.

Um. No.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Everything else has evolved based on survival of animals in their environment. Humans have supposedly evolved to be....social. Loving. Artistic. Aware of our own mortality. Able to contemplate concepts such as eternity. We didn't evolve tails that aid us in balance - apparently, we lost 'em. Claws and teeth that aid us in self-defense, extra joints, bigger muscles for improved mobility, etc...evolution emphatically points out how animals thrive in their environment due to such physical "changes over time", however any correlation to humans and the evolution of their mental capacity over time is guesswork at best. Animals are naked for all intents and purposes with fur, feathers, scales, etc, which help them camouflage against their environment. Take a naked human and throw it into a jungle, and he's basically a big weak meat lozenge which can't run very well, has no self-defense against claws or teeth, no venom, no ability to blend into environment, NOTHING.

And we have evolved...?

All arguments I've seen for human evolution when confronted with such concepts don't seem to make much sense.

I like this.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

Everything else has evolved based on survival of animals in their environment.

Yes, yes.

Humans have supposedly evolved to be....social.

We're not special there.

Loving. Artistic. Aware of our own mortality. Able to contemplate concepts such as eternity.

The words you're looking for are "higher cognitive function"

We didn't evolve tails that aid us in balance - apparently, we lost 'em.

Inner ear balance is far more convenient for buying pants.

Claws and teeth that aid us in self-defense, extra joints, bigger muscles for improved mobility, etc...evolution emphatically points out how animals thrive in their environment due to such physical "changes over time",

Right.

however any correlation to humans and the evolution of their mental capacity over time is guesswork at best.

You know who doesn't die to common cold anymore?

Animals are naked for all intents and purposes with fur, feathers, scales, etc, which help them camouflage against their environment.

Yes

Take a naked human and throw it into a jungle, and he's basically a big weak meat lozenge which can't run very well, has no self-defense against claws or teeth, no venom, no ability to blend into environment, NOTHING.

Yes.

And we have evolved...?

You got it.

All arguments I've seen for human evolution when confronted with such concepts don't seem to make much sense.

No you're just silly and jealous the tortoise can outlive you TWICE. You fully understand evolution (sorta) but you're salty you got the best gift.

We evolved a super cognitive function and lost all our defenses to compensate. It helped us create tools and clothing. Tools are awesome. Do you know that the ONLY other animal that comes close to matching the cognition of humans? Betting you heard this: CHIMPS.

It's been recently discovered they make SPEARS to HUNT. They also look both ways when crossing the street. Does that sound familiar? Have a look at your distant past.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyGxQq7jSA8

Be proud of yourself and have a look at everything SUPER COGNITION has accomplished.

 

[Mediate]

So. I want to know about it from people who are really into this subject and I would like to receive answers in a polite manner and with no intention of causing disputes! So, which are the best arguments for evolution and the best arguments against evolution? Do you think there are more for or against?

I have not ever heard a single coherent scientific argument against evolution, a scientific theory. Not one. Ever.

 

[durangodawood]

Everything else has evolved based on survival of animals in their environment. Humans have supposedly evolved to be....social. Loving. Artistic. Aware of our own mortality. Able to contemplate concepts such as eternity. We didn't evolve tails that aid us in balance - apparently, we lost 'em. Claws and teeth that aid us in self-defense, extra joints, bigger muscles for improved mobility, etc...evolution emphatically points out how animals thrive in their environment due to such physical "changes over time", however any correlation to humans and the evolution of their mental capacity over time is guesswork at best. Animals are naked for all intents and purposes with fur, feathers, scales, etc, which help them camouflage against their environment. Take a naked human and throw it into a jungle, and he's basically a big weak meat lozenge which can't run very well, has no self-defense against claws or teeth, no venom, no ability to blend into environment, NOTHING.

And we have evolved...?

All arguments I've seen for human evolution when confronted with such concepts don't seem to make much sense.

At some point the advantages of provided by brainpower began to overwhelm the advantages provided by basic physical traits. Thats when we started becoming (evolving toward) human, I think.

Seems sensible to me, anyway.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

Exactly. Our species began to put more effort into developing our cognition. And it looks like the chimps aren't too far behind

 

[Loudmouth]

So. I want to know about it from people who are really into this subject and I would like to receive answers in a polite manner and with no intention of causing disputes! So, which are the best arguments for evolution and the best arguments against evolution? Do you think there are more for or against?

The best argument for evolution is the twin nested hierarchy. Phylogenies based on morphology correlate to phylogenies based on DNA sequence.

While it is true that morphology is based on DNA, the reverse is not true. You can have very different DNA sequences that produce the same morphology. Talkorigins uses the analogy of computer codes, and it works well here. Google Chrome on Apple and PC look nearly identical from the outside, it's morphology. However, the code behind that outward appearance is very different on the Apple and PC. You can use completely different programming languages and produce identical looking programs. Therefore, there is no expectation that morphology and DNA should match up if design is true. The only reason that you should see these two things match up is if they evolved, and they do match up.

 

[Loudmouth]

As for arguments against evolution, they all boil down to one argument: my religious beliefs won't allow me to accept evolution. For some, that is a good argument. As for a rational, logical, or scientific argument against evolution, I know of none.

 

[Belk]

The best argument for evolution is the twin nested hierarchy. Phylogenies based on morphology correlate to phylogenies based on DNA sequence.

While it is true that morphology is based on DNA, the reverse is not true. You can have very different DNA sequences that produce the same morphology. Talkorigins uses the analogy of computer codes, and it works well here. Google Chrome on Apple and PC look nearly identical from the outside, it's morphology. However, the code behind that outward appearance is very different on the Apple and PC. You can use completely different programming languages and produce identical looking programs. Therefore, there is no expectation that morphology and DNA should match up if design is true. The only reason that you should see these two things match up is if they evolved, and they do match up.

Would you say this evidence is better then retro-viral insertion data?

 

[TheImmortalJellyfish]

No you're just silly and jealous the tortoise can outlive you TWICE. You fully understand evolution (sorta) but you're salty you got the best gift.

So first I'm jealous of animals with longer life span, then salty about having the best gift? I don't follow you, I apologize.

We evolved a super cognitive function and lost all our defenses to compensate.

To compensate for what?? Why in the world would we lose a good self-survival trait (several, in fact, supposedly) if we are evolving?

Be proud of yourself and have a look at everything SUPER COGNITION has accomplished.

If I had nothing to do with it, why should I be proud of myself?

 

[GrimKingGrim]

So first I'm jealous of animals with longer life span, then salty about having the best gift? I don't follow you, I apologize.

Yea. You displayed quite a bit of bitterness toward the fact. And I was pointing out the irony that you're mad you have the best gift out of any animal. Like being mad when you got a Ferrari when you wanted a clunker.

To compensate for what?? Why in the world would we lose a good self-survival trait (several, in fact, supposedly) if we are evolving?

With so much development going into the structure of our brains we lost quite a bit of things. It's all in your head. But we gained knowledge to LEARN how to survive and use our environment without instinct. Don't know why this isn't amazing to you but it's clear you don't know very much about animals or humans for that matter.

If I had nothing to do with it, why should I be proud of myself?

Because it's like being born into royalty? Go ahead and feel shame then. But to me I'm always in awe as to how far we've taken the gift of thinking that you clearly could care little about. You wanna be an X-Men, I wanna be alive.

 

[TheImmortalJellyfish]

Yea. You displayed quite a bit of bitterness toward the fact. And I was pointing out the irony that you're mad you have the best gift out of any animal. Like being mad when you got a Ferrari when you wanted a clunker.

I did...? Please show me where I displayed anything of the sort...bitterness? lol...if I actually believed in human evolution, then you could say I was being "bitter".

With so much development going into the structure of our brains we lost quite a bit of things.

Beg pardon...? Things such as what?

It's all in your head.

What is?

But we gained knowledge to LEARN how to survive and use our environment without instinct. Don't know why this isn't amazing to you but it's clear you don't know very much about animals or humans for that matter.

What don't I know?

Because it's like being born into royalty? Go ahead and feel shame then. But to me I'm always in awe as to how far we've taken the gift of thinking that you clearly could care little about. You wanna be an X-Men, I wanna be alive.

I cannot parse this. I'm perfectly happy in the body God gave me

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

How does the ability to use fire "prove" that we didn't evolve?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Do you want to take a look at that?

1. It's proprietary code which I do not own.
2. I'm positive you wouldn't understand a word of it.

I say that any genetic algorithm is only a tunnel view of evolution. any of those conclusions does not really happen in nature.

Meanwhile, Boeing uses GA's to optimize fuel distribution in their big plane engines.

You can say whatever you wish. It won't make GA's stop working. Because they do work. Very well. Because mutation + selection as a mechanism works. If it didn't, GA's would be useless. But they aren't. So yeah...

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

That didn't answer my question.

What do you propose as an alternative, and better, tool for investigating the world, instead of science?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Everything else has evolved based on survival of animals in their environment.

No, not just "everything else". It goes for every species.

Humans have supposedly evolved to be....social

And we aren't alone in that at all. There's plenty of other social species out there.

Loving. Artistic. Aware of our own mortality. Able to contemplate concepts such as eternity.

Yes, those are some of the human-only traits, yes. Every species has traits unique to them. It's kind of what defines them as a species. If we would have the exact same traits as chimps, there would be no difference between humans and chimps. Derp.

We didn't evolve tails that aid us in balance - apparently, we lost 'em.

Yes. It's called the tail bone. I'm sure you heared of it.

Claws and teeth that aid us in self-defense, extra joints, bigger muscles for improved mobility, etc...evolution emphatically points out how animals thrive in their environment due to such physical "changes over time", however any correlation to humans and the evolution of their mental capacity over time is guesswork at best.

No, it's not.
Evolution can explain the human trait of intelligence and cooperation just as well as claws and big teeth. Both are useful tools to assure survival for the respective niches of life they belong to.

Animals are naked for all intents and purposes with fur, feathers, scales, etc, which help them camouflage against their environment

We have fur as well, just like all mammals.
Have you ever gotten goosebumbs when cold or afraid? You know what those are, right? And why they appear when cold or afraid? Cause it sounds like you don't.

Take a naked human and throw it into a jungle, and he's basically a big weak meat lozenge which can't run very well, has no self-defense against claws or teeth, no venom, no ability to blend into environment, NOTHING.

Right.
That's because we evolved in another direction then simple brute strength and solo hunting. We evolved into tool use and cooperation. For us, that worked better then the brute force approach.

You seem to have the cliché false idea that "evolved" means "bigger, stronger, faster,..." etc. As if it were a ladder. This is false.

And we have evolved...?

yes.

All arguments I've seen for human evolution when confronted with such concepts don't seem to make much sense.

I'm guessing that's because you are somewhat ignorant on how evolution actually works, considering your above statements.

That's okay though. Ingorance is not a problem, because it's easily fixed. All it takes is a bit of reading and a minimum of studying.

Surely you must agree that it's kind of silly to try and argue against a theory without first actually studying what the theory is really all about......

 

[DogmaHunter]

To compensate for what?? Why in the world would we lose a good self-survival trait (several, in fact, supposedly) if we are evolving?

We started to work together more closely and build tools to facilitate something like hunting for example.

Suppose we had big teeth and claws that were used for hunting previously.
When starting to use tools and cooperation... the better we get at that, the lesser we would need that brute strength (and rather dangerous approach of 1-on-1 combat).

When a trait is no longer needed, there's good chance that it goes away over time.

More then that, LOSING those "brute force" traits actually made us BETTER at making tools etc. Big clunky claws don't allow for precision tool making as well as the finer motoric skills our current hands provide.

Let's take teeth... Take a look at chimp teeth. Those are some sharp weapons, right? Now take a look at the size of their mouths. Now compare that to ours.

Our mouth is a lot smaller. Reason? Our brains have gotten much bigger. As a tradeoff, our mouths had to get smaller. Now, we are at the point where our mouth is even to small for all our teeth!!! Which is why most people need to have their "wisdom teeth" pulled. Mouths like ours also are to small to fit such enormous teeth as those of chimps.

To illustrate with a clearer example of "losing traits as a benefit", take a look at moles. They spend their time living underground in dirty tunnels. It's dark there, so they have no need for eyes. In fact, having eyes down there is a BAD thing. Because they will eventually get infected from all the dirt.
Now, look at moles. They HAVE eyes. But they don't work. They are hidden behind a layer of skin. "eyelids", if you will, that can't be opened anymore.

Evolution is not just the accumulation of abilities and traits. Evolution is also the losing of traits. It's whatever works best for the circumstances at a particular time. Polar bears wouldn't have white fur if they lived in the jungle.

If I had nothing to do with it, why should I be proud of myself?

To put it poetically, I'm "proud" of my bloodline upon realising the following (courtesy Prof Dawkins):

For the past 3.6 billion years, not a single one of my ancestors died before succesfully reproducing.

I find that to be one of the most poetic facts in nature. I think it's very humbling.