• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you reject evolution?

Do you reject evolution?


  • Total voters
    114
Those who indulge in creationist claptrap love to use these terms, but he only real difference between the two lies in terms of the amount of time involved. They describe the same process.

It's a YEC thing? Why else specify a time frame?
 
He doesn't need to provide proof. Directed mutation and random mutation are logically distinct. It is logically impossible for both to operate on the same process simultaneously

Thanks. I'm here trying to describe "they would be different things!". I think you put it concisely.
 
I was kinda talking to myself. Without going through my life history I was raised in a very fundamentalist Christian environment. By the age of probalby 8 or 9 I seen many inconsistancies in what I was being taught at church and what I was learning from the rest of the world. One of the biggest things I had a problem with the chruch about was the 6000 year old earth. It really shook my faith and I drifeted away from chruch for many many years. Damn, that wasnt my life history but I did babble sorry, anyway, I beleive God did set it in motion, I dont beleive God just ****s with us, and I beleive evolution occured exactly how science describes it...just like eco says, except I have faith God did it somehow. I have learned not to confuse faith with science. Anytime there is a conflict there between science and the Bible there is just something we dont understand...yet.
To what end would god create an illusion of random mutation and natural selection? To **** with us?

I didn't say god created a random system. Read my question in the context in which it appears.
 
We have not been able to make our current understanding of them conform to the theory, but perhaps we will in time.

False. Random mutation and thus adaptation with the environment has been proven and fits fine with Darwin's primary claims.

You're inventing this conflict between theory and knowledge. Why? To deny evolution.
 
I was kinda talking to myself. Without going through my life history I was raised in a very fundamentalist Christian environment. By the age of probalby 8 or 9 I seen many inconsistancies in what I was being taught at church and what I was learning from the rest of the world. One of the biggest things I had a problem with the chruch about was the 6000 year old earth. It really shook my faith and I drifeted away from chruch for many many years. Damn, that wasnt my life history but I did babble sorry, anyway, I beleive God did set it in motion, I dont beleive God just ****s with us, and I beleive evolution occured exactly how science describes it...just like eco says, except I have faith God did it somehow. I have learned not to confuse faith with science. Anytime there is a conflict there between science and the Bible there is just something we dont understand...yet.

Gotcha :)
 
Correct, so you cannot say it IS random, only that it APPEARS to be or has a good probability to be. See, was that so hard?

Because we are discussing two different things. I am presenting the science behind the issue, you are throwing in religion / philosophy. The two don't mix. Anyway, as much as I would like to continue this discussion, I need to get a run in.

As a side note, humans have evolved to be quite possibly the best long distance runners in the entire animal kingdom due to adaptions we have at chasing prey on the African Savanna. Given enough distance, a well trained endurance runner can out run a dog, a horse, any large predator, or any migratory animal that lives on land. We cool ourselves, supply glycogen to our slow twitch muscle fibers, and run at slow speeds more efficiently than just about any other animal. Almost all of our physical characteristics are adapted to running long distances and cooling ourselves as we do so. As sprinters though, we are quite mediocre.
 
Thanks. I'm here trying to describe "they would be different things!". I think you put it concisely.

Yes. Directed mutation would result in elaborate and ostentatious intelligent design, whereas random mutation is an integral part of the very definition of evolution. Just as you said, actually :)

Furthermore, it would be intelligent design which was made to SEEM like evolution. A silly idea, as a consequence, unless you postulate a capricious god.
 
Last edited:
I beleive God did set it in motion, I dont beleive God just ****s with us, and I beleive evolution occured exactly how science describes it...

A deist that rejects literal creation?
 
Those who indulge in creationist claptrap love to use these terms, but he only real difference between the two lies in terms of the amount of time involved. They describe the same process.

Yes but one is a proven scientific fact, while the other is a theory full of holes.
 
I do not reject evolution nor do I reject intelligent design.

mak2;1062732489 ............... I have learned not to confuse faith with science. Anytime there is a conflict there between science and the Bible there is just [B said:
something we dont understand...yet.
[/B]

and The Benedictine Monks of Santo Domingo De Silos intone...............

Ahhhhh-mennnnn

Thom Paine
 
False. Random mutation and thus adaptation with the environment has been proven and fits fine with Darwin's primary claims.

You're inventing this conflict between theory and knowledge.
You mean a new theory supports the old theory. You're claiming that random mutation is a fact, and that it fits the theory, and I agree with the notable exception that random mutation may only appear to be random. I'm no wizard at this stuff, so maybe you can correct me with some evidence - i.e., some good reading.
 
He doesn't need to provide proof. Directed mutation and random mutation are logically distinct. It is logically impossible for both to operate on the same process simultaneously

Evolution is directed by the rules of survival of the fittest. Under a given set of conditions mutations are not neutral, some are beneficial and most are not. Thus evolution is directed by prevailing conditions toward an accretion of beneficial adaptations. Although it's not clear exactly what conditions led apes to evolve toward losing their hair and their upper body strength and developing so much brain power that politics seems like a worthy preoccupation. There are many interesting questions about evolution that we'll probably never know the answers to, but one thing is certain: Everyone alive today is the result of an unbroken line of successful procreation stretching back to the beginning of life on earth. From the standpoint of evolution and biology, anything that departs from the continuance of that line is failure.
 
Obviously. I said I would not go into my life story so, to make it short, that is how I maintain my faith.

A deist that rejects literal creation?
 
A deist that rejects literal creation?

Not that hard to fathom.

Possibly a higher power (by whatever name you apply) gave a push to what was already happening in that swamp.

Doesn't mean the higher power had any control over where it went from there......
 
Obviously. I said I would not go into my life story so, to make it short, that is how I maintain my faith.

A non-literal deist is not bad. I'm cool with any metaphysical expression. I'm atheist, believing in a non-individual god constructed of the collective conscious and subconscious of all entities. I believe the only afterlife is influence, I don't believe anything supernatural.
 
Evolution is directed by the rules of survival of the fittest. Under a given set of conditions mutations are not neutral, some are beneficial and most are not. Thus evolution is directed by prevailing conditions toward an accretion of beneficial adaptations. Although it's not clear exactly what conditions led apes to evolve toward losing their hair and their upper body strength and developing so much brain power that politics seems like a worthy preoccupation. There are many interesting questions about evolution that we'll probably never know the answers to, but one thing is certain: Everyone alive today is the result of an unbroken line of successful procreation stretching back to the beginning of life on earth. From the standpoint of evolution and biology, anything that departs from the continuance of that line is failure.

Aaaaannnnnnd, what exactly is your point? It looks like we agree but it also looks like you are trying to tell me something that you think I don't agree with.
 
You mean a new theory supports the old theory. You're claiming that random mutation is a fact, and that it fits the theory, and I agree with the notable exception that random mutation may only appear to be random. I'm no wizard at this stuff, so maybe you can correct me with some evidence - i.e., some good reading.

So, your objection is the same as another herein: "it COULD be blahblah".

Yes, it could be. It could be a giant spaghetti ball ruling over all of creation. Everything could be an illusion, we're in the Matrix being used for juice.


It COULD be anything. You got us.

Nihilism :roll:
 
Evolution is directed by the rules of survival of the fittest. Under a given set of conditions mutations are not neutral, some are beneficial and most are not. Thus evolution is directed by prevailing conditions toward an accretion of beneficial adaptations. Although it's not clear exactly what conditions led apes to evolve toward losing their hair and their upper body strength and developing so much brain power that politics seems like a worthy preoccupation. There are many interesting questions about evolution that we'll probably never know the answers to, but one thing is certain: Everyone alive today is the result of an unbroken line of successful procreation stretching back to the beginning of life on earth. From the standpoint of evolution and biology, anything that departs from the continuance of that line is failure.

I think I figured out the distinction you are trying to make, and I should have seen it sooner because I was expecting someone to show up with this off topic distinction.

Yes, I know mutations that are kept are directed by prevailing conditions. But this doesn't address the point. The point being that before prevailing conditions act upon an organism with a mutation, the change that occurred in the organism was a random occurrence. The further point being that it was not directed by some outside intelligence.
 
Last edited:
So, your objection is the same as another herein: "it COULD be blahblah".

Yes, it could be. It could be a giant spaghetti ball ruling over all of creation. Everything could be an illusion, we're in the Matrix being used for juice.


It COULD be anything. You got us.

Nihilism :roll:
Outside of you, I have no idea who "us" is. You believe random theory in this application. You don't know it. If such a thing exists as absolute knowledge, I requested that you provide it. You certainly don't have to.
 
Outside of you, I have no idea who "us" is. You believe random theory in this application. You don't know it. If such a thing exists as absolute knowledge, I requested that you provide it. You certainly don't have to.

You request absolute knowledge; otherwise, you're just gonna invent any crap you like. Ridiculous.
 
You request absolute knowledge; otherwise, you're just gonna invent any crap you like. Ridiculous.
Then your contention that my post was "false" is at the very least equally incorrect. In fact, you don't know either.
 
In fact, you don't know either.

No one knows anything. Yes. Great argument. Given that we know nothing... science is irrelevant, meaningless, there is no proof of anything. Who can we turn to? Oh, I know... Jesus!
 
Back
Top Bottom