The evolution theory.

[Goran]

Iam gonna hold a debate soon in school about the evolution theory, but my opponents are more and among them there are one who is really good at the ways of argument.
So I need some help, if you guys could take your time I ask (beg) you to help me find arguments for and against the evolution theory.

[GDwarf]

Heh, the I:SB has a large number of threads that catalogue every argument for, and against, the theory that you're likely to see.


However, TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy has every argument made for, and, as always, against, evolution that I know of.

Although the website itself is pro-evolution (it refutes every argument against it), you can probably find some arguments there to use if you're anti, provided you don't mind ignoring the rebuttals it provides.

[Kilmiz]

Originally Posted by GDwarf

Heh, the I:SB has a large number of threads that catalogue every argument for, and against, the theory that you're likely to see.


However, TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy has every argument made for, and, as always, against, evolution that I know of.

Although the website itself is pro-evolution (it refutes every argument against it), you can probably find some arguments there to use if you're anti, provided you don't mind ignoring the rebuttals it provides.

Or he could plan around the rebuttals

[efo]

i actually figured out why things evolve but i need to write it out and see if i can make this a full proof theory or whatever XD

[GDwarf]

Why is pretty simple:

Mutations.

Every new creature is different from either of it's parents (unless it's parents reproduce asexually, in which case it may end up being identical.).

These difference either help the creature survive and have many children, hinder it's survival and child-rearing, or are neutral.

The vast majority are neutral (in most cases having slightly rounder ears, for example, won't make the difference between life and death.) most of the rest are harmful. The few remaining are beneficial.

The ones with harmful mutations don't survive or don't have as many children as those who have neutral or positive ones. As such they tend to die out quickly, without passing on their bad mutation to more than a generation or two.

Those with good mutations are the opposite. They survive longer and/or have more children than the others. As such their mutation gets passed on to their children, who will also be better at surviving. Given sufficient time they'll replace all the ones who don't have the beneficial mutation, or they'll move to somewhere else where they're better suited to survive, leaving the others behind.

This keeps going, until you end up with a large variety of species.


Now, there's more to it than that, but I'm no biologist, so you get the cliff notes version.

[Kilmiz]

Originally Posted by GDwarf

Why is pretty simple:

Mutations.

Every new creature is different from either of it's parents (unless it's parents reproduce asexually, in which case it may end up being identical.).

These difference either help the creature survive and have many children, hinder it's survival and child-rearing, or are neutral.

The vast majority are neutral (in most cases having slightly rounder ears, for example, won't make the difference between life and death.) most of the rest are harmful. The few remaining are beneficial.

The ones with harmful mutations don't survive or don't have as many children as those who have neutral or positive ones. As such they tend to die out quickly, without passing on their bad mutation to more than a generation or two.

Those with good mutations are the opposite. They survive longer and/or have more children than the others. As such their mutation gets passed on to their children, who will also be better at surviving. Given sufficient time they'll replace all the ones who don't have the beneficial mutation, or they'll move to somewhere else where they're better suited to survive, leaving the others behind.

This keeps going, until you end up with a large variety of species.


Now, there's more to it than that, but I'm no biologist, so you get the cliff notes version.

That is a very good basic way of saying it. nice job.

[Coma Black]

Ahem:

Evolution is no longer a theory. Natural selection is a proven fact, the basis of Charles Darwin's original propositions. We look for the best partner in a romantic relationship on what we'd want to be carried on in our children.

Ah...whatever, I'm n00b flamethrowing fodder no matter how long I type.

Anywho, I'm not saying we all didn't just "poof" out of nowhere because of some kind of deity, but if you don't think the fittest survive, then you're either ignorant or you have nighmares about treadmills. lol

[Kilmiz]

Originally Posted by Coma Black

Ahem.

Evolution is no longer a theory. Natural selection is a proven fact, the basis of Charles Darwin's original propositions. We look for the best partner in a romantic relationship on what we'd want to be caried on in our children.

Ah...whatever, I've n00b flamethrowing fodder no matter how long I type.

Anywho, I'm not saying we all didn't just "poof" out of nowhere because of some kind of deity, but if you don't think the fittest survive, then you're either ignorant or you have nighmares about treadmills. lol

Tell that to Creation theorists. no really I mean it, I want to here what they have to say. go find one and post what they say.

[GDwarf]

Just look in the I:SB for your answer to that.

More older threads than newer ones, though.

[Verrick]

Is it micro or macro evolution that is being argued? (micro=many stem species to what we have today. Macro=1 stem to what we have today) It makes a difference.
Micro as far as people can observe is perfectly fine. Macro is another story. (as in each side refuses to acknowledge any validity in the other's side.)

Also, is it really evolution, or is it abiogenisis? (the begining of life with no intelligent design) Evolution goes hand in hand with abiogenisis, but is different. For that I suggest a simple Einstein quote: *Einstein smashes a beaker* He asks, "What are the odds of this beaker randomly putting itself back together?" "None" responded someone. "The odds of every organism on Earth coming about without intelligent design is even less than that of the beaker reforming." Or something to the gist of that.

Evolution is no longer a theory. Natural selection is a proven fact

Evolution and Natural Selection are two different things. (they go hand in hand but are still two sperate entities.) Evolution is indeed still a theory. It is also a fact. Evolution as theory and fact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia see?

Evolution explains why species change over time. Theory
Evolution can be observed. Fact

Get your facts straight.

[The_Eagle]

Originally Posted by Rhalen

Is it micro or macro evolution that is being argued? (micro=many stem species to what we have today. Macro=1 stem to what we have today) It makes a difference.
Micro as far as people can observe is perfectly fine. Macro is another story. (as in each side refuses to acknowledge any validity in the other's side.)

Also, is it really evolution, or is it abiogenisis? (the begining of life with no intelligent design) Evolution goes hand in hand with abiogenisis, but is different. For that I suggest a simple Einstein quote: *Einstein smashes a beaker* He asks, "What are the odds of this beaker randomly putting itself back together?" "None" responded someone. "The odds of every organism on Earth coming about without intelligent design is even less than that of the beaker reforming." Or something to the gist of that.



Evolution and Natural Selection are two different things. (they go hand in hand but are still two sperate entities.) Evolution is indeed still a theory. It is also a fact. Evolution as theory and fact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia see?

Evolution explains why species change over time. Theory
Evolution can be observed. Fact

Get your facts straight.

Natural Selection is an aspect of the evolutionary theory, evolution can occur through natural seletion according to science but I still call evolution a theory.

An example being, a population in a species gets subjected to a desiease, those with an immunity to it survive and increase in numbers while the ones that have no immunity to it die. Which means that after a certain time the population would be immune to that desiease.

Also there wasn't a lot of evidence to the evolutionary theory in Darwin's time as compared to now, since we have genetics and more advanced technology.

[Coma Black]

Originally Posted by Rhalen

Get your facts straight.

mkay

[-=Cobra=-]

I'll state a couple things really quick:


If evolution was true and we evolved from monkeys, *looks around* why don't you see any of these half-monkey half-man creatures walking around? They'd still be here.

And the fact that the earth was MAGICALLY created through a big spoof or whatever so-many-million years ago is absurd. Think about this for a minute:

Look at all the trees, the hills, the valleys, the mountains and plains. Look at all the scenery around you. It's too perfect. None of this could have happened by mere coincidence. This brings me to my next point: us.

We were supposedly just "created" by a lucky and coincidental chain of events. Look at yourself. The way your body functions. You couldn't walk without your toes, as you wouldn't have balance. You couldn't hear without ears. You couldn't see without eyes. You couldn't function without a heart. You have to take into fact your blood cell count and all that. *not a medical expert, so i'm not going to try and get into all the fancy terms* It's too perfect. One wrong thing, no matter HOW small, could make a human messed up. It's all too perfect to have been created by mere coincidence.

In the Bible it says in Genesis 1:1:

"In the beginning, God created the Heaven and the Earth."

The KJV Bible stands true today. Although the problem is, even though it's true, they won't let you bring "religion" into it. Know why? Deep down inside they know it's true. If it was really "false" and "full of propaganda" as they say, then they'd let you go on about it, and make a fool out of yourself. Only God could have done something this perfect. Everything had to be in PRECISE balance. That's something that no coincidence or "big bang" *or WHATEVER they want to say* could have done.


I'll say no more. as I could go on all day. Good luck with your debate! If you need more info or whatnot feel free to PM me on here, Guildinn.com or Planetrenders.net. I'm Cobra on both of the other sites, so feel free to hit me up on there if you need it.

[Kilmiz]

Originally Posted by -=Cobra=-

We were supposedly just "created" by a lucky and coincidental chain of events. Look at yourself. The way your body functions. You couldn't walk without your toes, as you wouldn't have balance. You couldn't hear without ears. You couldn't see without eyes. You couldn't function without a heart. You have to take into fact your blood cell count and all that. *not a medical expert, so i'm not going to try and get into all the fancy terms* It's too perfect. One wrong thing, no matter HOW small, could make a human messed up. It's all too perfect to have been created by mere coincidence.

I read a discover article about just that, but for the most part talking about eyes... and how there are tons of parts you need for an eye, but are useless on there own. they had something about, skin that can tell if there is light there frist, then it being shaped kinda like a pit and they could tell where the light was coming from, so they did better... you know what I just need to go find it and link to it.

and think about this way. we didn't make up blood from ape to human, they have blood to. there was years and years to make blood, and eyes, and hearts. how many living things have hearts? a lot, far as I can tell. it's not like, one go and we have blood, you are underestimating the time in which this happened. your right, one thing going wrong and that thing well die. guess what. that happens a lot. but very very rarely, something good happens. they don't die as much. so we are "perfect" (I don't believe in perfect) because we, all living things. have had time to "find out" what works.

and we didn't come from moneys, so much as we both came from the same thing, in a way, monkeys would not be some left behinds. they to would change evolution, so don't think "moneys turning to humans, but there are some monkeys hanging out still. but they mid-monkey humans? they all died." that is not what people say, far as I can tell.

[Razekial]

Originally Posted by -=Cobra=-

If evolution was true and we evolved from monkeys, *looks around* why don't you see any of these half-monkey half-man creatures walking around? They'd still be here.

That was millions of years ago, in that span thousands of separate extinctions could occur. Your question could be rephrased to ask "Why aren't there any more woolly mammoths?"

And the fact that the earth was MAGICALLY created through a big spoof or whatever so-many-million years ago is absurd. Think about this for a minute:

Sorry, but if anything sounds magical, it's how the Bible states we came about.

We were supposedly just "created" by a lucky and coincidental chain of events. Look at yourself. The way your body functions. You couldn't walk without your toes, as you wouldn't have balance. You couldn't hear without ears. You couldn't see without eyes. You couldn't function without a heart. You have to take into fact your blood cell count and all that. *not a medical expert, so i'm not going to try and get into all the fancy terms* It's too perfect. One wrong thing, no matter HOW small, could make a human messed up. It's all too perfect to have been created by mere coincidence.

In the first organisms, there was only one cell. Over the billions of years since then the organisms gradually became more advanced. You're talking as if Atheists believe that we came out of the primordial ooze with completely random characteristics.

In the Bible it says in Genesis 1:1:

"In the beginning, God created the Heaven and the Earth."

How did he do this?

The KJV Bible stands true today.

That's debatable.

Although the problem is, even though it's true, they won't let you bring "religion" into it. Know why? Deep down inside they know it's true.

That isn't even a remotely valid point.

[Azarimanka]

Well, if you PM me I can give you evidence. However what I will do here is help you with the argument: Cicero, one of the finest orators there has ever been used two parts to his arguments.
THEY ARE EQUALLY IMPORTANT
1. Make your points
2. Attack and discredit those of the opposition

If you get your 2. right then you will not have to worry as much about proving your own argument.

Hope this helps.

[-=SUBROSIAN=-]

god made dinosaurs which means he also made cavemen which we evolved from so god is the keyword in this post like he made cavemen and the evolved into us... so evolution is true but god made cavemen sooo... you get meh drift???

[GDwarf]

Originally Posted by Rhalen

Is it micro or macro evolution that is being argued? (micro=many stem species to what we have today. Macro=1 stem to what we have today) It makes a difference.

No, it doesn't.

Macro evolution is what you get when micro evolution adds up over time.

The only way Macro evolution is impossible is if there is some sort of species barrier that prevents, for no reason, the creation of a new species.

In addition, macro evolution has been observed. So there's no doubt about it.

Also, is it really evolution, or is it abiogenisis? (the begining of life with no intelligent design) Evolution goes hand in hand with abiogenisis, but is different. For that I suggest a simple Einstein quote: *Einstein smashes a beaker* He asks, "What are the odds of this beaker randomly putting itself back together?" "None" responded someone. "The odds of every organism on Earth coming about without intelligent design is even less than that of the beaker reforming." Or something to the gist of that.

Einstein never said that. He was a pantheist/deist who held that god never interfered with reality.

In addition, abiogenesis and evolution are really completely seperate. One is chemistry, the other is biology.

Evolution and Natural Selection are two different things. (they go hand in hand but are still two sperate entities.) Evolution is indeed still a theory. It is also a fact. Evolution as theory and fact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia see?

Natural Selection is part of evolution, so no, they aren't really separate.

Get your facts straight.

Indeed, perhaps you should.

Originally Posted by -=Cobra=-

I'll state a couple things really quick:


If evolution was true and we evolved from monkeys, *looks around* why don't you see any of these half-monkey half-man creatures walking around? They'd still be here.

Ah, I take it you know nothing about evolution, then?

Please read my previous-to-last post and point out what part of it doesn't make sense or is wrong. Since that's all evolution is, really.


Anyways, to address this silly thing: They're dead. Australopithecus was one of them, and Neanderthal man was an offshoot of them, so it's not as if we have no evidence of their existence, it's just that they didn't survive for a few million years.

Finally, we didn't evolve from monkeys. We evolved from an animal that had descendants that evolved into the great apes, of which we are one.

And the fact that the earth was MAGICALLY created through a big spoof or whatever so-many-million years ago is absurd. Think about this for a minute:

Look at all the trees, the hills, the valleys, the mountains and plains. Look at all the scenery around you. It's too perfect. None of this could have happened by mere coincidence. This brings me to my next point: us.

Ah, no offence, but you really should actually learn about evolution before you argue against it.

If you had you'd know that evolution makes no claims about the origin of life. Life could've started essentially as it is now and evolution would still be true.

Of course, you'd then have to account for the millions of fossils we've found of creatures that aren't around.

We were supposedly just "created" by a lucky and coincidental chain of events. Look at yourself. The way your body functions. You couldn't walk without your toes, as you wouldn't have balance. You couldn't hear without ears. You couldn't see without eyes. You couldn't function without a heart. You have to take into fact your blood cell count and all that. *not a medical expert, so i'm not going to try and get into all the fancy terms* It's too perfect. One wrong thing, no matter HOW small, could make a human messed up. It's all too perfect to have been created by mere coincidence.

And again you misunderstand the theory. (Sorry to keep saying that, but I want to be very clear: You aren't arguing against evolution. You're arguing against some made-up theory that no one actually believes that you're calling evolution.)

So, first off, humans aren't perfect. Did you know that our eyes have blind spots because our nerves go in front of our light-sensing cells? It would take only a small change to remove that, but for some reason God felt we needed to be semi-blind.

Our spines aren't built for upright use. They are, however, perfectly suited for a hunched-over posture, rather like what monkeys use.

Our wisdom teeth are useless. In fact, they're a real problem.

Our immune system can attack our own bodies due to mis-identifying tissue as a disease.

The list goes on.

So, we aren't perfect. That's fine for evolution, but troublesome if you think we were designed.

Next, evolution isn't random. It's semi-random, which makes a huge amount of difference.

An example I like using is this:
Flipping 100 coins and having them all land heads-up is a very unlikely event. In fact, the odds are 1:2^100, which is 1:1 267 650 600 228 229 401 496 703 205 376.

However, what if you could re-flip a coin as many times as you wanted if it landed tails? Suddenly the odds drop to almost 1:1.

The first is entirely random. The second is semi-random. A semi-random process, as you can see, makes the odds infinitely more favourable.

In the Bible it says in Genesis 1:1:

"In the beginning, God created the Heaven and the Earth."

The KJV Bible stands true today. Although the problem is, even though it's true, they won't let you bring "religion" into it. Know why? Deep down inside they know it's true. If it was really "false" and "full of propaganda" as they say, then they'd let you go on about it, and make a fool out of yourself.

You are allowed to do so. In fact, in the US you are encouraged to do so.

Please don't try to play the martyr card. You're living in the most Christian country in the world, which has "In God we trust" printed on the currency.

You're a martyr in your own eyes only.

Only God could have done something this perfect. Everything had to be in PRECISE balance. That's something that no coincidence or "big bang" *or WHATEVER they want to say* could have done.

Except that life isn't perfect. It has an elegant beauty, yes, but it's also clearly cobbled together from spare parts made to do something else. Take a good look at any part of the human body and you'll find that it's made out of parts adapted for some other use.


Finally, you really should read talkorigins.org. I think you'll be surprised at how thoroughly all of your arguments are debunked there.

[Coma Black]

Originally Posted by -=Cobra=-

I'll state a couple things really quick:


If evolution was true and we evolved from monkeys, *looks around* why don't you see any of these half-monkey half-man creatures walking around? They'd still be here.

Monkeys and humans have a COMMON ancestor that no longer exists

[Azarimanka]

Originally Posted by Coma Black

Monkeys and humans have a COMMON ancestor that no longer exists

quite right


whoever made the original point is an IDIOT who clearly knows NOTHING whatsoever about evolution!

I am a Christian, Greek Orthodox, and deeply religious - but I still find Darwin's Theory to be the finest theory ever made - after all, it was God who gave him the Idea to write it!