techtalknow Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Hi everyone! I'm new to these forums and thought I'd start out with something...perplexing. At my school, we're having a pro/anti evolution debate and I've written a few speaking points. Considering I'm not an evolutionary science expert, I thought I'd share them around for you guys to pick about and see what I am mistaken about. I've pasted them below, let me know what you think. Speaking Point #1: Irreducible Complexity is the theory that humans are too advanced to have evolved from a single cell, and states as a fact that everything we have evolved to didn’t exist previously. Additionally, systems such as the cardiovascular system or the central nervous system seem too complex to have evolved from a single cell. Take the human spinal cord for example. The spinal cord carries sensory information from our nerve endings to our brain, and the resulting information back. Without a spinal cord we wouldn’t be able to walk, talk, or continue to live for that matter. So how is it that the intricacy of the spinal cord and our central nervous system in general could have “supposedly” all evolved from a single cell. And seeing as vertebrates need a spinal cord, wouldn’t that technically mean that any vertebrate previously shouldn’t be alive? Speaking Point #2: Irreducible Complexity stems from the claim that some biological systems appear to be too complex to have arisen by natural selection. Specifically, it argues that if you take a part away from an organism and it stops functioning (analogous to taking the engine out of a car) then it must be irreducibly complex and cannot have evolved. It is one of the main arguments of the “ Intelligent Design” movement. Say it’s true that we did in fact evolve from a single cell. In reproduction whether sexual or asexual, the chances of a mutation are extremely rare, but are “statistically random” according to multiple sources. Thus, it is hard to believe that every time there was an “evolutionary pressure”, the resulting evolution effect was positive and we gained rather than losing. Speaking Point #3: According to Scientific American, “living things have fantastically intricate features—at the anatomical, cellular and molecular level— that could not function if they were any less complex or sophisticated. The only prudent conclusion is that they are the products of intelligent design, not evolution.” What does this mean? In a simplified form, all of our bodily features and processes all rely on each other. If one doesn’t work, it hampers other functions. The same can be said against evolution, laying down a strong argument supporting Irreducible Complexity. Speaking Point #4: Remember the story about scientists growing an ear on the back of a mouse? This point has a faint connection to that. See, take the DNA of a fish for example. Somewhere in there is a piece that says “I’m a fish”. No matter what, under natural circumstances, that piece will always be there. So how is it that we could evolve with different DNA without external influence? It’s a recreation of asking which came first, the chicken or the egg. Neither, an outside influence created both. If that is in fact true, the entire theory of evolution becomes less and less tangible seeing as there is proof of Intelligent Design from an outside creator. Speaking Point #5: Evolution states that we evolved from single cells which somehow became cavemen along the course of time. While physical evolution is a statistic that can be recorded, mental evolution isn’t. How is it possible to “evolve” something that isn’t tangible? And how could these mental changes be recorded if there isn’t any physical evidence to record? If someone writes down “This new life form seems smarter”, is that going to be taken as legitimate evidence? Hopefully not, there’s nothing to back it up. Speaking Point #6: The well-known “Missing Link”. There are Missing Links all throughout the evolutionary tree. Gaps where we have no tangible evidence of evolution. Periods of time where nothing is recorded, nothing appears to evolve, and there’s nothing saying otherwise. To fill in these gaps, we’ve come to trust scientific hypothesising as official evidence without realizing that a hypothesis is just an educated guess at best. How can we create and support a scientific theory with holes all through it, spots where things are fuzzy at best? Evolution is still a theory, after all. We’ve seen supposed “evidence” and drawn our own conclusions without thinking of more legitimate alternatives. Final Statement: While this is mainly a Biology debate, Irreducible Complexity can be supported by Chemistry as well. See, every time a blood cell in the lungs takes on an oxygen molecule, that's a chemical reaction. Every time a cell in the pancreas produces an insulin molecule, that is many chemical reactions. Every time a nerve cell in your eye or brain fires, this is a cascade of ions traveling through the nerve cell, which is essentially thousands of chemical reactions, which cascades out to thousands of other nerve cells. Just to give you a slight idea of how big the number is, here’s the crunch. Just to stay alive, a human cell has to turn over (consume and replace) all its ATP (energy source) about once every one or two minutes. So that's about 10^7 chemical reactions (a 1 with seven zeros) per second. Multiply that by 86,400 (8.64 x 10^5) seconds per day. That's 8.64 x 10^12 reactions per cell per day. Multiply that by 100 to 200 trillion cells in the human body (depending on how big you are) ... so lets call that 100-trillion = 10^14. So that's about 8.64 x 10^26 or 8.64e+26 chemical reactions per day. No calculator I could find would show me an actual amount as an answer, but the answer i got was 864,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, or 864 SEPTILLION. How is it possible that even if that single cell did in fact exist, it could sustain itself and the evolutions after it? And if we could sustain ourselves then, why can’t we now? According to the Theory of Evolution, Evolution occurs when there is a pressure. What could possibly create a pressure to not be able to sustain ourselves anymore? ***Let me know what you think*** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewcellini Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 (edited) At my school, we're having a pro/anti evolution debate i hope this is in english and not biology class. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ICsilly.html Edited January 7, 2015 by andrewcellini Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techtalknow Posted January 7, 2015 Author Share Posted January 7, 2015 i hope this is in english and not biology class. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ICsilly.html what are you meaning by that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewcellini Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Speaking Point #5: Evolution states that we evolved from single cells which somehow became cavemen along the course of time. While physical evolution is a statistic that can be recorded, mental evolution isn’t. How is it possible to “evolve” something that isn’t tangible? And how could these mental changes be recorded if there isn’t any physical evidence to record? that is assuming that the mental is not derived from the physical. the hunk of fat between my ears cares to disagree 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sensei Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 (...) seem too complex to have evolved from a single cell. (...) Did not you grow up from single cell from mother, and single spermatozoon from father.. ? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techtalknow Posted January 7, 2015 Author Share Posted January 7, 2015 that is assuming that the mental is not derived from the physical. the hunk of fat between my ears cares to disagree so you're telling me that apes have the same amount of knowledge as us, we're just different physically? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overtone Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 (edited) I thought I'd share them around for you guys to pick about and see what I am mistaken about. - - Basically, to within reason, every single positive assertion or claim you've made about physical reality there is in error. So all of your reasoning is based on mistaken claims of fact. (the one or two exceptions are trivial). In addition, you do not appear to have studied evolutionary theory, nor do you appear to understand what a scientific theory is in the first place. So your reasoning is no good either. Arguing about fringe hypotheses when you have no background in the standard science involved, no experience in reasoning scientifically, and little acquaintanceship with the physical world in which it is employed, is a waste of your time. Learn some biology, get familiar with the basic and standard theories everyone uses every day, and you will be able to correct - or better, discard - that entire post. Edited January 7, 2015 by overtone 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Hi everyone! I'm new to these forums and thought I'd start out with something...perplexing. At my school, we're having a pro/anti evolution debate and I've written a few speaking points. Considering I'm not an evolutionary science expert, I thought I'd share them around for you guys to pick about and see what I am mistaken about. I've pasted them below, let me know what you think. I can't work out if you are arguing for evolution by showing how ludicrous the anti arguments are, or if you are trying to argue against it and making an even worse job than the usual nutters do. If you are supposed to be on the anti team, then you might as well just make something up. Like, evolution is impossible because the sky is green. Or evolution is impossible because vanilla ice cream tastes nice. Those make as much sense as any of the usual arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewcellini Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 (edited) what are you meaning by that? i hope that your "biology" teacher is not trying to teach a supposed controversy about evolution as it is an observed fact and the basis of many different fields from microbiology to medicine. so you're telling me that apes have the same amount of knowledge as us, we're just different physically? no, where in my statement did i say that? they too have brains yes. and they are different in physical ways yes. and they are similar in physical ways yes. i'm not saying anything about knowledge. Edited January 7, 2015 by andrewcellini Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techtalknow Posted January 7, 2015 Author Share Posted January 7, 2015 (edited) i hope that your "biology" teacher is not trying to teach a supposed controversy about evolution as it is an observed fact and the basis of many different fields from microbiology to medicine. no, where in my statement did i say that? they too have brains yes. and they are different in physical ways yes. and they are similar in physical ways yes. i'm not saying anything about knowledge. also, what about the fact that there are periods of time where we have no proof/evidence? Did not you grow up from single cell from mother, and single spermatozoon from father.. ? didnt that single cell require outside influence to be created/supported? It seems you have been caught up in believing evolution is science, when it is indeed a religion—an anti-Christian religion. And since “molecules-to-man” evolution is origins science, it is not observable, testable or repeatable unlike operational science, which is how we get space shuttles, computers, antibiotics and mapped genomes! Even popular evolutionist Ernst Mayr is aware of this fact. He stated, and I quote, “ Evolution is a historical process that cannot be proven by the same arguments and methods by which purely physical or functional phenomena can be documented.”In other words, if anything is anti-science, it is the belief in undocumented, unrepeatable, unobservable molecules-to-man evolution. Edited January 7, 2015 by techtalknow -4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewcellini Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 (edited) . also, what about the fact that there are periods of time where we have no proof/evidence? the fossil record is not the only evidence. there is mountains of genetic evidence, take this for example http://content.csbs.utah.edu/~rogers/pubs/Rogers-E-49-608.pdf Edited January 7, 2015 by andrewcellini Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techtalknow Posted January 7, 2015 Author Share Posted January 7, 2015 Basically, to within reason, every single positive assertion or claim you've made about physical reality there is in error. So all of your reasoning is based on mistaken claims of fact. (the one or two exceptions are trivial). In addition, you do not appear to have studied evolutionary theory, nor do you appear to understand what a scientific theory is in the first place. So your reasoning is no good either. Arguing about fringe hypotheses when you have no background in the standard science involved, no experience in reasoning scientifically, and little acquaintanceship with the physical world in which it is employed, is a waste of your time. Learn some biology, get familiar with the basic and standard theories everyone uses every day, and you will be able to correct - or better, discard - that entire post. Then why not explain to me where I am wrong? Also do realize, this is a debate by about 10 tenth graders. I'm not sure what you were expecting... I can't work out if you are arguing for evolution by showing how ludicrous the anti arguments are, or if you are trying to argue against it and making an even worse job than the usual nutters do. If you are supposed to be on the anti team, then you might as well just make something up. Like, evolution is impossible because the sky is green. Or evolution is impossible because vanilla ice cream tastes nice. Those make as much sense as any of the usual arguments. Funnily enough, at my school, those participating against evolution have won the last three years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuzzwood Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Molecules to man has nothing to do with evolution. That's abiogenesis. Evolution has been observed in bacteria and virusses (one of the reasons why you can still get flu and why HIV is so damn hard to get rid of), "yes but those are microevolutions!" I hear you say. Sadly for you, that distinction doesn't exist. Just give it enough time, few dozens of million years will do the trick. Then why not explain to me where I am wrong? Also do realize, this is a debate by about 10 tenth graders. I'm not sure what you were expecting... Funnily enough, at my school, those participating against evolution have won the last three years. Probably because neither side know what they are talking about. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techtalknow Posted January 7, 2015 Author Share Posted January 7, 2015 Molecules to man has nothing to do with evolution. That's abiogenesis. Evolution has been observed in bacteria and virusses (one of the reasons why you can still get flu and why HIV is so damn hard to get rid of), "yes but those are microevolutions!" I hear you say. Sadly for you, that distinction doesn't exist. Just give it enough time, few dozens of million years will do the trick. oh and for those wondering, my job was to only focus on Irreducible Complexity, not a whole argument against Evolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Funnily enough, at my school, those participating against evolution have won the last three years. If you were my kid, I'd move you to a better school. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techtalknow Posted January 7, 2015 Author Share Posted January 7, 2015 If you were my kid, I'd move you to a better school. Going to this school wasn't my choice in the first place. My old high school forced me out. It was a fiasco, TBH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sensei Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 so you're telling me that apes have the same amount of knowledge as us, we're just different physically? Knowledge is not encoded in DNA. You learn during life. You learn every day. Apes can learn much faster and much better than us. See this: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techtalknow Posted January 7, 2015 Author Share Posted January 7, 2015 ALSO, Why is it that evolutionists are unwilling to allow for competing models, i.e., creation or even intelligent design? The hypothesis of evolution changes every year; if one theory is said to be fact, but then a year later is shown to be wrong, then how can it be fact in the first place? A true fact is something that never changes, am I right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sensei Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 ALSO, Why is it that evolutionists are unwilling to allow for competing models, i.e., creation or even intelligent design? The hypothesis of evolution changes every year; if one theory is said to be fact, but then a year later is shown to be wrong, then how can it be fact in the first place? A true fact is something that never changes, am I right? When and where theory of evolution was proven to be wrong?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techtalknow Posted January 7, 2015 Author Share Posted January 7, 2015 When and where theory of evolution was proven to be wrong?? If something is fact, that means its true no matter what, correct? If we are able to prove a fact wrong then the theory/idea it was based on is inherently incorrect... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Going to this school wasn't my choice in the first place. My old high school forced me out. It was a fiasco, TBH. How you got there isn't the point I was making. If a school can't teach kids to understand that evolution is a fact then it's a school that has failed. Also, if it can't teach them to debate in such a way that the side that's clearly correct wins, then they have failed. There is, by the way, no conflict between religion and evolution- it's a pity that more religious people (and schools) don't accept that. http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/09/16/us-vatican-evolution-idUSLG62672220080916 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewcellini Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 how do you prove a fact wrong? a fact is a fact. it is demonstrated by experiment, or experienced. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techtalknow Posted January 7, 2015 Author Share Posted January 7, 2015 How you got there isn't the point I was making. If a school can't teach kids to understand that evolution is a fact then it's a school that has failed. Also, if it can't teach them to debate in such a way that the side that's clearly correct wins, then they have failed. There is, by the way, no conflict between religion and evolution- it's a pity that more religious people (and schools) don't accept that. http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/09/16/us-vatican-evolution-idUSLG62672220080916 ugh from the beginning i felt like this would escalate. I was asking for some constructive criticism, not a fight to tear my 10th grade work apart. FFS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewcellini Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 (edited) ALSO, Why is it that evolutionists are unwilling to allow for competing models, i.e., creation or even intelligent design? they are more political movements in order to force religion into the classroom than actual scientific models. they make very few falsifiable predictions (like the existence of an intelligent designer), and more importantly the predictions that are falsifiable (irreducible complexity) have been demonstrated to be false. Edited January 7, 2015 by andrewcellini Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techtalknow Posted January 7, 2015 Author Share Posted January 7, 2015 how do you prove a fact wrong? a fact is a fact. it is demonstrated by experiment, or experienced. How can you demonstrate evolution? Is there a DIY Evolution Lab Kit you can buy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now