Evolutionary PRATTS

[Wiccan_Child]

Post fallacious pro-evolutionary arguments that have been put forth by evolutionists. Akin to to Creationist PRATTS ("Flood caused geological strata"; "Giraffes don't give birth to walruses"), but for evolution.

 

[Washington]

No problem . . . . .










































. . . . er, I guess I do have a problem. Never mind.

 

[Dal M.]

The only ones I can think of are the sort that angry teenaged atheists tend to post on GameFAQs: evolution proves that there's no God, creationism is wrong because it's dumb, etc.

 

[Patashu]

Yeah. I know there are some out there but I can't recall any off the top of my head.

 

[sfs]

"The Second Law of Thermodynamics only applies to closed systems."

"Evolution doesn't say humans descended from apes; it says apes and humans had a common ancestor."

"Micro- and macroevolution are terms invented by creationists."

This one is true but seems designed to do nothing but annoy people: "How could you possibly dispute the fact of evolution? You can observe allele frequencies in populations changing."

 

[Split Rock]

The biggest evolutionist PRATT I have seen here is: "Creationists are all idiots," or variants thereof. They may be intransigent, they may be deluded, they may be ignorant of certain things, but they are not generally speaking idiots or stupid people.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

"Evolution doesn't say humans descended from apes; it says apes and humans had a common ancestor."

this can be corrected by inserting the word "modern" before "ape".

 

[Adivi]

"The Second Law of Thermodynamics only applies to closed systems."

"Evolution doesn't say humans descended from apes; it says apes and humans had a common ancestor."

These are both correct; what's wrong about them?

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Well, the second law doesnt go away just because it's not a closed system. The overall entropy of the universe is still increasing.

 

[Loudmouth]

Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.

 

[[serious]]

"Well, the second law doesnt go away just because it's not a closed system. The overall entropy of the universe is still increasing."

The universe being a ______ system.

 

[Adivi]

Well, the second law doesnt go away just because it's not a closed system. The overall entropy of the universe is still increasing.

True, but you can't use the second law to say that evolution is impossible, because the Earth is not a closed system. It has energy input in the form of the sun, and energy output in the form of heat radiation.

 

[Loudmouth]

Well, the second law doesnt go away just because it's not a closed system.

That's true. Ocean currents are a good example. They are caused by thermal differences (ordered) that are in the process of reaching equilibrium (disordered). However, without the constant input of energy from the sun these currents would have stopped billions of years ago.

 

[Vainglorious]

This one bugs me: humans have grown taller in the last century therefore evolution is happening.

The increase in average height is due to nutrition not any change in genetics.

 

[ReverendDG]

This one bugs me: humans have grown taller in the last century therefore evolution is happening.

The increase in average height is due to nutrition not any change in genetics.

wow do people really say that?
that doesn't sound like an evo pratt but more like a misunderstanding of evolution

 

[ReverendDG]

how about people saying evolution and religion are incompatible
both sides say this and its repeated enough on both sides enough, but has been refuted a million times

 

[NailsII]

The biggest evolutionist PRATT I have seen here is: "Creationists are all idiots," or variants thereof. They may be intransigent, they may be deluded, they may be ignorant of certain things, but they are not generally speaking idiots or stupid people.

Bizarrely, creationists are not stupid.
And that's what makes it worse......

 

[Impaler]

The speed of light arguement.

It's principles are correct, but just about every creationist has heard it many times and already has an answer for it.

 

[Nathan45]

One I see very often here is this:

"Bats are not birds, therefore genesis is wrong"

Which is a pointless argument because genesis is written in ancient hebrew not english. In ancient hebrew birds would apparently be inclusive of bats. It's entirely a semantic issue.

 

[Nathan45]

The speed of light arguement.

It's principles are correct, but just about every creationist has heard it many times and already has an answer for it.

i've yet to see a good answer for it that doesn't violate ockham's razor in about a thousand different ways.