evolution sucks

Great Debates
21

psycho–hopefully you’ll read some of the links posted by other dopers about the evolution of the eye. But if you want something quick and easy check this out…

You say: “An animal that mutates part of an eye has no advantage in survival since the eye doesn’t work! The mutation can’t get a foothold.”

An eye only needs to be photosensitive to work. Look at scallops. They have a fringe around their shell which senses the water around them. They also have “eyes” next to this fringe that can detect any ominous shadows…mainly from the sun star coming for lunch. So not only can scallops “smell” the sun star, but they can also “see” the sun star approaching and get out of the way–a definite advantage for survival.

22

Oh, brother. And here I was looking for a semi-initelligent debate. While I’m here, I might as well debunk yet another misconception in the OP that hasn’t been addressed yet:

The best evidence indicates that the earth is 4.6 billion years old. The earliest known fossil evidence of cellular life is 3.86 billion years old. That’s 614 million years difference. Almost immediately? Hardly.

23

Regarding the bacteria which can digest nylon:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html

In any event, it’s clear that all species have mutations which made them better able to survive. I’ve yet to meet a creationist who can explain the similarity of sequence between proteins of unrelated function- in other words, proteins that were created by beneficial mutations.

Given that the OP called macroevolution “a pile of illogical crap,” perhaps he/she would care to explain protein homology?

-Ben

24

And yet another misconception:

A species with no eyes doesn’t develop eyes. However, descendents of such a species may, if a) the precursors to a fully-functional eye (see previous posts regarding simple light-sensitivity for an example) arise, and b) such a characteristic proves to be advantageous to individuals possessing it.
Novel features like eyeballs, lungs, wings and such do not typically arise complete and fully functional from an ancestral population. They are typically built piecemeal, each new generation further modifying the existing structures.
And, more to the point, the species in which we may finally find the ‘finished’ product will not be the original species where the precursors to such features first appeared.

And, to follow up on the gist of the OP itself, for the most part, I would agree that evolution, as taught in high school, perhaps does suck. High school teachers generally are not required to possess the depth of knowledge that university professors are, thus are less likely to be ‘up to date’ with current theories. As such, evolution in high school biology classes is typically covered more as an adjunct to comparative anatomy/physiology than as a theory in its own right. As a result, many students come out of high school with incomplete, or perhaps even outright erroneous, information about evolution.

25

Gene that helps body store fat may be important trigger of obesity.

(The following was written under the assumption the theory the article describes is accurate.)

Back in the pre-historic days, food was scarce. Those humans whose bodies had evolved the gene this article describes were better able to survive famines. They multiplied, they passed this gene on to their descendents. Today, because of our sedentary lifestyle, this gene is a detriment to our survival and leads to obesity and all of its subsequent problems.

26

Any bets on whether Psycho will be back?

27

psycho wrote, in the OP:

You misspelled “I”. Hope this helps.

28

No thank you, Andros, but where the hell is David B? He normally jumps on people like Psycho with both feet.

29

I like to leave some of the dregs for others to kick around.

30

It’s been four days since his last post, so it looks like we scared him off.

31

Just in case Psycho comes back:

**Psycho wrote:

What I hate is how schools routinely teach it as fact.**

(Freyr holds up a book entitled “Epistimology”)

Psycho, here’s a book you need to read. You’ll an abundant supply of them in schools and libraries. Essentially, it’s the philosophy of “how we know what we know.” Please read a copy and then compare the epistimology of evolution vs creationism.

** But nooooo, we can’t admit that science doesn’t have all the answers, or allow the students to actually find a place for God in their lives.**

Any reputable scientist will freely admit we don’t have all the answers.

As for God in the lives of students; it’s not the goal of any public school to help a student learn about God, or Gods. That’s the job of the religious institution of their choice. Since there are so many different ways to view God(s), it’s better to let the student find their own way.

32

Psycho just doesn’t know what science is, that’s his problem, apart from his self-confessed psychosis (har har).

“But nooooo, we can’t admit that science doesn’t have all the answers, or allow the students to actually find a place for God in their lives.” he says.

Of course scientists don’t claim to have all the answers, if they did, they’d be out of a job for one thing! Science is about seeking out facts, not claiming to posess them all. Scientific theories can in most cases be both disproven and proven, that doesn’t make them unscientific.

What scientists refer to as “fact” is in only their best guess from the available data, which is as close to the truth as it’s possible to get in my oppinion.

As for the God part, I don’t really get your argument. Why does knowing the most scientifically valid facts on any given subject make you more of an atheist? Who is to say God is not behind evolution, it seems to me that it would take a pretty powerful force to plan and execute such a fine harmony as nature is?
I’m an atheist myself, insofar as that I don’t prefer any one religeon over the other, but I discount nothing as much as I believe nothing.

Anyhoo, I think psycho is gone forever, maybe to form his own messageboard of people who don’t like facts. The fact that he feels that facts (ok, I’m using that word a lot) are the enemy of religeon as he sees it, only means that he does not truly believe in God. After all, simple facts should not threaten a deity that is universally true and powerful!

  • G. Raven

p.s. my favorite religeon/education quote:

— Superintendent Chalmers: “Prayer has no place within school walls, just like facts have no place within organized religeon!” —

Nuff said, Mr. Groening!

33

or some pretty powerful laws of physics & thermodynamics…

anyhow, what’s so damn special about the way things are. just stating it’s “harmonious” (and that’s arguable) doesn’t mean anything except it allows itself to continue existing. any other arrangement would be “harmonious” too, if it kept going.

There’s too much of a high premium on the way things are, just because it all fits together & the odds against it are enormous. But the odds are exactly the same against any other combination of events or “way things are”, so this “way” does not deserve any special explanation (such as a creator).

34

True, my comment about “a force behind it all” was mere speculation, expecially tailored to bring people like Psycho to their senses about evolution.

Like I stated elsewhere in the post, I’m an atheist myself.

— G. Raven

35

Just wanted to get my 5 cents in.

I think what most people forget, or ignore in the evolution vs. creationism debate…is that creationism isn’t a science,it has never been based to science, and the only scientific resolve in it, is to try to prove evolution wrong. Creationism, is a dogma for it is associated with the Christian faith, and as with all dogmas, they are static and unable to be proven false, so to argue with these people is pointless. When they come up with a viable pro-Creationist scientificly derived argument, only then will i give a damn!

36

Actually, the only people who forget (or ignore) that are the creation scientists themselves.

And the resolve to prove evolution wrong is no more scientific than anything else creation scientists do. It is more of an attempt to dismantle an entire field of study through a complete misunderstanding of what they are trying to dismantle in the first place.

37

Psycho, I wonder: have you done any reading suggested since 11/12/00? Because if you have and still do not understand why giraffe’s neck is long or if you still think it was short and then elongated as he was trying to reach top braches, I’ll explain it to you.

But do not say that something is not a fact because your feeble mind do not understand it. E.g., my feeble mind does not understand all the intricacies of the PC I type this shit for you on. Yet I do not say “It’s not a fact.”

38

I think when people claim that evolution is only a theory,
they’re right. The problem is, they don’t know what the word theory means. A theory is not some fantasy that a scientist invents out of nothingness. A theory is supposed to be a coherent explanation which attempts to cover observed facts. The Big Bang is a theory. It isn’t without controversy, but it does go a long way to explaining the state of the universe today. But of course, no one was there to see it happen.

Evolution, too, is a theory. And as the disclaimer-stickers now required by law to be put into schoolbooks, in some jurisdictions, no one was there to see the origin of life,
or of human beings. But it is a theory with an immense amount of supportive evidence, from a wide variety of scientific disciplines.

39

Just imagine, our ancestors were so sturdy and strong one of them could probably have lifted the end of a car without breaking a sweat. Now we’re feeble, skinny, osteoporotic, slowpoke weaklings that couldn’t even take a chimp at one-third our size.

40

Javaman, does your tirade about “our ancestors” mean tath you met them somehow or are you hallucinating?
And how does is relate to evolution?
BTW, if you ever see a dictionary or know how to use a search engine, look up “THEORY”, under “T”.