Re: GOP Debate - Evolution Question

[modernrocks]

idiot

[micah1116]

I challenge the guy who made this video to debate me on creation vs evolution. Try and prove it to me. Lets see what the scientific evidence supports. You are being lied to my friend.

[Chronoecho]

In Science nothing is truth. Everything is a theory. A Theory is an idea based on a large number of observations, facts, and experiments. To tell me that evolution dosent work is impossible because in my own definition it is a theory. Are you completely discrediting the entire theory? Nothing you say for creation aka intelligent design will have more observable, and re creatable evidence than evolution does

[micah1116]

@Chronoecho I'm going to end this debate in about 5 seconds, here let me show you. Define what you mean by evolution. THEN we can discuss what we are talking about here.

[micah1116]

@Chronoecho I'm assuming this is what you think evolution is. Lets say you let all the dogs back into the woods. The smaller and weaker ones die out and the larger and smarter dogs live on and natural selection preserves the "better" species. If that's what you think evolution is, then I agree, evolution happens and is certainly scientific. But what happens is that you don't see the fallacy of believing a simple population shift will result in entirely new kinds of animals.

[micah1116]

@Chronoecho Continued, Natural selection SELECTS, it doesn't create anything, it's a natural population shift of already existing organisms. So how do we go from that to entirely different kinds of animals. Let me guess, millions of years. Then it's not science. I have plenty of emperical evidence for design, you didn't even bother asking.

[micah1116]

@Chronoecho If you can observe something it's not a theory, it's science. I'm not calling the actual creation event science, since we did not observe it happen. Please present your best evidence for evolution. I will enjoy shooting down your absurd claims.

[Chronoecho]

@Micah Ahhh. Natural Selection. Well Its interesting because you only gave the second part of the natural selection theory. Evolution is by definition is heritable changes over time through many generations. So Natural selection is not evolution. It is exactly the theory of how new species are created.

[Chronoecho]

@Micah Lets say you have a bacteria. Now this bacteria is planktonic, which means that it has no real control on where it goes, it goes whereever nature takes it. Now this bacterium due to a genetic mutation has formed a flagella. Allowing it to control where it goes. Due to its capability to move it is able to survive. This dosent mean the ones without die, but the mutations that happened to others DID NOT benefit the organism, so they died.

[Chronoecho]

Continuing from my previous post:'

Now that the bacterium is able to survive with a flagellum is is able to reproduce, it becomes more abundant. And its possible that more mutations could spring from this new species as well. Well. A New species was created. How do you counter that?

[Chronoecho]

Actually Everything is a theory. theory of gravity, etc. Just because we observe it, the reason behind it is a theory. We could be totally wrong and gravity could not exist and its a figment of our imagination. So nothing is truth, but science tries to fulfill our curiosity with trying to find facts (a fact would be like Fire produces heat) But for gravity, as to why it happens. Its only a theory. Even though we see it work. WHY is the real question

[Chronoecho]

Why do you shoot down mine anyway? What is their to gain? Is Evolution somehow effecting your life negatively? Does it counteract a belief you currently have? Because Its impossible to say Evolution is false honestly. their have been tests with months in which they are placed in different climates, and over time they actually change colors to match their enviorment. Human evolution has not been tested of coarse. Is that your real beef? human Evolution?

[micah1116]

We don't see evolution so according to your definition it's not even a theory.

[micah1116]

This has never been observed. Formation of new structures cannot happen.

[Chronoecho]

So When a Child has a genetic mutation in which they have 4 arms instead of two. Is that not the creation of a new structure? Is a mutation in which Something changes pigments not a new strudture? Or will you argue its just a changed structure. Mutation of a new structure is completely possible. Just Wiki mutation lol

[micah1116]

No, a duplication of existing structures is not evolution, it's a copying of already existing information. Show me where an entirely new structure has been formed.

[micah1116]

Speciation even if a real process is only a variety. When you have a variety, it actually results in a LOSS of DNA, it's the opposite of evolution. The debate is over new kinds of animals, not species. Show me an example of a new kind of animal.

[Chronoecho]

A Species IS a new kind of animal. And u got the theory thing wrong. You dont see evolution so you explain it. that makes it a theory. Just because You lose DNA dosent mean you are more advanced. Some worms have more DNA than humans.

[micah1116]

Define what you mean by species. By kind I mean those that can interbreed and have the same morphology. Dogs and cats are different kinds. Define what you mean by species.

[Chronoecho]

I really cant get over what you said "the Debate is over new kinds of animals, not species" AN NEW ANIMAL = A NEW SPECIES. Its not that complicated. Take some more science classes. THEN come argue with me. Im going to post a video in my Video comments box, Watch it. THEN come talk to me.

[micah1116]

I can't believe how you don't get what your not seeing here. Once again define species and the debate will be over, you will realize that evolution is not observed. Your getting micro and macro confused and they have NOTHING to do with each other. Micro actually results in a loss of information. Macro would require a major gain in information, changes to morphology, etc. Micro can't possibly lead to macro, they are totally opposite things, yet you don't see this.

[Chronoecho]

haha, alright. This whole conversation is pretty much pointless. You obviously arent looking to change your idea. Its to shoot down my idea which is shared by the majority of the scientific community. This is a waste of breathe. Please dont argue that Im "running away" or something. This conversation is just not worth my time. And your micro macro philosphy is silly. Something dosent change from a Dog to a cat. Its extremely small changes over million of years.

[Luftwaffels]

Douche.

[bwhitele]

Huckabee didn't say he doesn't believe in evolution, when you dissect what he's saying. I'm not sure why he raised his hand in the first debate; the only thing he said was, paraphrased, "I believe that we were created. I don't know how it was done, but I believe God did it. Maybe we evolved, but we had to be created first!" Theistic evolution.

Science and religion are't contradicting each other here. The best metaphor I can think of is the difference between starting a race and running it.

[PtH888999]

He later said that in an interview to make himself look not retarded.

He really doesn't believe in evolution though.

[jonnyosta]

you damn lie-bral!

[Chronoecho]

I know, aren't we awesome.

[metalextremeist99]

I agree!

I mean c'mon people... I'm Christian and I still believe in the theory of evolution!

[micah1116]

@metalextremeist99 Then your ignorant of what the bible says. The bible says man brought death into the world. Evolution says death brought man into the world. Are you calling God a lier?

[metalextremeist99]

@micah1116 No. However, I am saying that you cannot spell :) yay flame war!