Mens Tennis Forums banner

Evolution....

16K views 428 replies 42 participants last post by  GOAT = Fed 
#1 ·
Do you accept the theory of Evolution? I know a lot of people that don't and personally I am quite shocked especially since there is an abundance of proof for the theory of evolution, sounds the most plausible at describing the origins of man and is accepted as a fact in the scientific community. What is MTF's opinion on Evolution?
 
#184 ·
Strong campaigning here
*grabs popcorn*
 
#189 ·
yep, only 1.5 out of roughly 4 million species are known to humans......the rest 2.5 million, almost all in water, is still unknown to man.....
 
#207 ·
You know the answer to that question. And it has nothing to do with evolution.
 
#233 ·
Religion and evolution lol sadly, are two things that can never go together for obvious reasons.

There's also no point in fighting for one or the other because I think these types of discussions can possibly go in circles.
Wrong again. It is quite possible to believe that a God created the universe and then let it evolve.
 
#226 ·
I'm kind of confused with this discussion, where is this going?

All I can say is evolution is like a mixed bag of chocolates, you're not sure what you're going to get next. It's very mysterious like its enemy religion.

The main problem with evolution is that its mostly theory based. There's no way we can really replicate evolution.
 
#238 ·
Sorry for misunderstanding your previous argument Seingeist.

However, what makes this "discussion" so frustrating that Aloimeh points out some minute details which according to him are against the theory of evolution. Some of these assertions are tough to verify and even if they were true right now, they may very well be proven later as has happened many times before.

Moreover, I don't think that any intelligent person can look at a mountain of evidence against a few grains of sand that are unaccounted for right now and come to the conclusion that the mountain is smaller. You seem to have a problem with the way Aloimeh is treated and I agree that it is sometimes quite rude, on the other hand it's difficult to discuss these matters when he focuses on some of these indifferent details.

What is your view on the actual topic? Surely you are intelligent and open-minded enough in your faith that you accept evolution?
 
#247 · (Edited)
Sorry for misunderstanding your previous argument Seingeist.
Not at all! I'm sorry that it was not as clear or precise as it might have been (just look at all the bitching that people are doing about the length of my posts as it is).

However, what makes this "discussion" so frustrating that Aloimeh points out some minute details which according to him are against the theory of evolution.
But I do not see how this is frustrating; is it not the whole point of debate (and intellectual curiosity)--to pose problems, objections, complications, questions--however apparently "minute" they may be?

What is frustrating is all the mockery, diversion, evasion, etc. Surely Aloimeh should be permitted to "point out some minute details," as you put it, no matter how contrary they are to the establishment ideology.

And, as it happens, I would not exactly call them "minute details," at least not in terms of potential significance. If even one biological phenomenon exists that in fact cannot be explained by the mechanisms of gradual mutation, then those mechanisms necessarily fail (at least as they are currently understood), along with everything that is built upon those mechanisms (pretty much the whole of macroevolutionary theory).

Some of these assertions are tough to verify and even if they were true right now, they may very well be proven later as has happened many times before.
Given that we do not all have an extensive education in biology, the first part of this sentence is true (in a sense). However, I suspect that even a small bit of internet research would suffice to at least discover some biological discussion of the examples that Aloimeh is talking about.

As for "may be proven later," even if that is the case, it makes for a very weak argument (Aloimeh could just as well make a blind appeal towards the future advancement of his case).

Moreover, I don't think that any intelligent person can look at a mountain of evidence against a few grains of sand that are unaccounted for right now and come to the conclusion that the mountain is smaller. You seem to have a problem with the way Aloimeh is treated and I agree that it is sometimes quite rude, on the other hand it's difficult to discuss these matters when he focuses on some of these indifferent details.
These "details" are anything but "indifferent," and I think that you quite misconstrue Aloimeh's evidence if you think so. The mountain vs. the grains of sand is not a fitting analogy, because quantity does not trump quality in the construction of a scientific theory. In other words, let's say for the sake of argument that one did indeed have a "mountain" of various evidence that seemed to support macroevolutionary theory. If one suddenly discovers a biological phenomenon that is absolutely impossible to explain with the fundamental tenets of this theory (i.e. the mechanisms of mutation), then that whole "mountain" of evidence is not enough to rescue the theory, because this one phenomenon has destroyed its most important foundational principles. At best, the latter must be suspended until it is coherently amended to account for the otherwise unexplainable phenomenon.

As for "intelligent person," that's clearly not what is at stake here. Aloimeh is indisputably intelligent, and far moreso than the majority of his interlocutors here. Indeed, many of them attempt to mask their intellectual inferiority by throwing cheap jibes from their cozy, cowardly seats within the theater of the established bullying majority.

Of course, this does not mean (nor has it ever meant) that more intelligent entails more correct. Intelligence has startlingly little to do with any given individual's worldview, as should be plain for everyone to see.

There is much that determines what we do and do not accept, and intelligence is a much smaller factor in that regard than many self-flatterers would like to believe.


What is your view on the actual topic? Surely you are intelligent and open-minded enough in your faith that you accept evolution?
See above. I utterly reject the form of your "question" because it contains blatantly wrongheaded and unjust presuppositions.

Lopez, does Aloimeh truly appear less "intelligent" and more "close-minded" to you than the people that he has been talking with in this thread?

Does the MTF evolutionist suddenly demonstrate an "open mind" by blindly following the establishment ideology without even allowing himself for one moment to question it or entertain objections? Aloimeh's opponents in this thread do not even make a remotely sincere attempt to countenance his objections. Does that strike you as the hallmark of an open mind?

Likewise, is the mark of "intelligence" to evade your opponent's arguments and sling cheap barbs instead, as the "MTF evolution squad" has done here?

If that which is on display by the majority of laughing hyenas in this thread can be fairly characterized as "open-mindedness" and "intelligence," then may I never be cursed with either.
 
#240 ·
Perhaps it would be because people who base their opinion on scientific proof expect people who would challenge with scientific proof, not with a dissenting opinion that is shared by a minuscule minority.

What is the percentage of scientists that say carbon dating is unreliable?
What is the percentage of biologists that claim evolution does not exist?
What percentage of geologists believe the earth is 6000 years old?
How many astronomers believe the universe is 6000 years old?
 
#241 ·
1.) Carbon dating is not used for the kind of dating we are talking about. It becomes totally unreliable after 60,000 years. That's off by a factor of more than 1000 from the dating of the last dinosaurs.

2.) A certain non-zero percentage. Sanford and Behe are two such biologists.

3.) Probably 0. The Bible never said the earth was 6,000 years old. That's your misreading. In Genesis the creation of the earth is not something that occurs within the six days of creation. The creative acts described in Genesis begin with an earth covered with water.

4.) Probably 0. The Bible similarly never said that the universe was 6,000 years old. As the earth is contained within the universe and the six days of creation begins with the earth already in existence, the universe is also already in existence before the six days of creation begin.
 
#248 ·
Tomorrow I will see a similar thread: "Which religion is better?". The day after tomorrow it will be: "Atheism or Agnosticism?". A week later: "Support gay marriage or advocate against it?". These types of topics are pointless, you can't convince the other side. Evolution still isn't a fact. There are people who support some levels of science, and those that disagree with other levels of science.

Take for example within Islam, there are millions of debates among scholars on what is "wrong" and what is "right. Some scholars argue "you can eat X,Y, and Z", while other scholars argue, "you can eat X and Y only". The only way to figure out who is wrong and who is right, is through scientific research. With evolution, I guess some things maybe we can prove, while other parts of it we can't.

So if there are people on this thread that disagree with 100% evolution, 50% evolution, or believe in evolution, it's their business.
 
#252 ·
Tomorrow I will see a similar thread: "Which religion is better?". The day after tomorrow it will be: "Atheism or Agnosticism?". A week later: "Support gay marriage or advocate against it?". These types of topics are pointless...
Really? You're gonna link a scientific facts vs laughable religious beliefs debate to a human rights for everyone vs hypocritical religious bigotry debate?

I know they are linked because the Church comes out as the retrograde douchey bad guy in both issues, but I do find that offensive.

Here is a great example, one of evolution's biggest failures:

Its inability to explain homosexuality. This was one of the central weaknesses of evolution.
What is also to be explained is why there are so many closeted homosexuals in the Church molesting children while the Church doing everything it can to protect the pedophiles and to label victims as liars.

Homosexuality happens in other species, it is a natural behaviour. Deal with it.
 
#260 ·
Do elaborate.
Maybe not. We all know how a certain demographic wields, shall I say, disproportional clout on this forum. I've been punished for being candid on that subject before. I won't have you ensnare me into that little game.
 
#262 ·
Maybe not. We all know how a certain demographic wields, shall I say, disproportional clout on this forum. I've been punished for being candid on that subject before. I won't have you ensnare me into that little game.
I see. Not only are your ideas those of a retrograde fucking retard, your also a hypocritical hateful coward.

The worse kind of Christian. God will spit in your face before sending you to hell.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Har-Tru
#250 ·
Believe it or not, but evolutionary psychologists (now that's something, a hybrid of two pseudosciences) have come up with an explanation.

It goes along the lines that a gay man is more likely to demonstrate the feminine nurturing tendencies that would make him a good uncle to his brother's/sister's children, and thus increase the fitness of his own children, even if he himself doesn't end up having children due to his sexual proclivities.

:haha:

Unreal, huh?
 
#257 ·
I don't think evolution and religion (including Christianity maybe) are incompatible. I think some people in here are arguing for evolution in an attempt to refute God, while another poster is supporting evolution to defend the idea of a God. I think there is quite good evidence in my mind for both evolution and God.
 
#261 ·
if a Christian fundamentalist wouldn't even yield the young Earth concept in the bible, one can only imagine what they think of homosexuals according to a fundamental understanding of the bible

scary that people like this still dwell among us, but that's what religion does when taken seriously
 
#263 ·
I don't have problems with evolution. I only have problems with people who think evolution is the ONLY way of explaining our entire life. I think people should look into many different concepts before coming up with conclusions.

This is kind of like Western medicine vs. Eastern medicine. The West tries to pass off Eastern medicine as something "phony" when in recent times it has been equally if not superior to Western medicine in some domains. The concepts of disease are also treated differently in both cultures.

I also think it's stupid to bundle up all Christian groups into one. I think this is unfair. Some Christians are more open minded than others, the same with Muslims, Jews, and people of other faiths and values.

The bottom line is, you have to explore what's out there and available. Don't use one method or strategy to explain everything.
 
#265 ·
The bottom line is, you have to explore what's out there and available. Don't use one method or strategy to explain everything.
if you know another scientific rival theory to the theory of evolution by natural selection, please do inform us

and no, intelligent design isn't a scientific theory
 
#296 ·
#299 · (Edited)
Let's reduce this to it's essentials and look at the big picture. If scientists have a fault, my observation of academics is that sometimes they get lost in a world of minutiae and don't just draw a general conclusion from a common-sense look at the big picture.

1.The age of the earth is known and is measured in billions of years.

2. The ages of sedimentary layers are known, either absolutely or relatively.

3. All the fossils in the earth's rocks show a gradual change in morphology over time, which is measured in billions of years. Fossils are never found outside of their age range. Put in simple terms - it is lunacy to assert that man lived side by side with dinosaurs.

Conclusion: The earth is billions of years old and all living orgasnisms have evolved over a very long period of time. The gradual evolution is clearly shown by the relative ages of fossilised species. A species evolves from another species and the chronological distribution of species in the earth's sedimentary layers never varies. The possibility that all known species, living or extinct, were created simultaneously, is zero.

That is it. The big picture. No minute details can change it. So draw your own conclusion. Until these three assertions are disproved, evolution is the only conclusion that can reasonably be drawn.
 
#307 ·
I will answer your post later in more detail but can you please educate us confused ones what do you actually believe to be the age of the earth and when life began approximately? You're being a bit confusing. Because I can't see how fossils are a poor argument against your arguments if you don't believe that the Earth even existed at the time when the fossils are dated.

I.e. did dinosaurs live with humans and life started 6000-10 000 years ago or the Earth is as old as dating methods tell us?
 
#315 ·
He's not "being a bit confusing" in this regard, you're a bit confused, and you're also going backwards at this point. I commented on this earlier in the thread, and it's as true now as it was then:

But it [age of earth] is a "sidetrack." The argument on the table involved specific biological phenomena that evolution cannot apparently account for. Aloimeh could concede for the sake of argument that the earth is as old as you like and it would fail to have any effect on the objection at hand.

That it might enter the scope of what is appropriate in a generalized discussion of evolution does not necessarily mean that it is relevant to the specific argument or issue at hand.

I bolded the portion that demands your careful attention. Aloimeh's objection to what you presented as "fossil evidence" has nothing to do with the age of the earth. It had to do with the ambiguity of what such a record is alleged to confirm.

The "age of the earth" is a red herring in the strictest sense. No matter how you look at it, it has no effect whatsoever on the objections that Aloimeh summarized above, because his objections are not logically dependent upon a young earth.
 
#323 · (Edited)
I like to think that it was a wise decision as well ;), but as you're well aware, it isn't for lack of "substance."

I have sort of an implicit 3-strike rule (although not always 3).

My discussion partner can miss the point (willfully or accidentally, more the former in your case) only so many times before I deem it to be fruitless to respond. Buddyholly has almost reached that point as well (see below).

It is not a red herring at all, it has every effect on the objections that Aloimeh summarized.
No, it doesn't. You either just don't get how a logical debate functions, or you do not understand what Aloimeh's objections actually are (for the sake of this discussion).

His objection to evolution is that it is contrary to God's word, as he understands it.
No, no, no, no. This is not his "objection to evolution," which is to say, that which he is actually putting forward as evidence against evolution.

Any personal reasons or motivations that Aloimeh might have for rejecting evolution have absolutely nothing to do with the validity of the scientific data that he offers as a challenge to evolutionary theory. He could believe that evolution is false because he had a dream in which gigantic ants told him as much and it would still have no effect on the scientific arguments that he mounts against evolution.

I simply do not know how I can make this more clear, buddyholly.


And a billions of years old earth is crucial to evolution. But Aloimeh only backtracked to the point where he admitted maybe the universe is billions of years old, but that is unrelated to the creation of life at a much later time. Therefore, proof of an old earth with abundant life brings down his argument on the origins of life. You can't take it out of the debate. While an old earth may not ''prove'' evolution, it does disprove Aloimeh's argument of life on earth being recent.
Indeed, "billions of years old earth" is crucial to the overall evolutionary narrative, but it has no bearing whatsoever on the scientific objections that Aloimeh is formally posing to it (which are, I will point out once more for the sake of clarity, distinct from various other reasons that Aloimeh does not accept evolution).

You cannot overturn a biological objection to evolution by firmly establishing some condition of possibility for evolution.

And technically, your last sentence there is false as well. An "old earth" does not disprove recent life, old life disproves "recent life."

In any case, it is tangential to the "evolution" debate here because nowhere (that I'm aware of, anyway) did Aloimeh offer the notion of "recent life" as compelling evidence to reject evolution. That is to say, he did get dragged into a discussion of "old" vs. "recent" life, but he did not offer this as an argument against evolution. And that tangent served its purpose beautifully: to distract attention from the objections that the "evolutionists" here were unable to answer.

In case you're still in the dark as to what those are, Aloimeh offered a generous reminder of them in his reponse to Lopez:

Aloimeh said:
It's not true that irreducible complexity is my only argument. It's just one of them. I also mentioned typology, embryology (completely different embryonic histories for homologous organs), and conserved transcription factors (e.g. pax6) that generate functionally the same organ in widely different species even though the structures of these organs are worlds apart.
Do you recognize, buddyholly, that the "age of the earth" does not touch the validity or invalidity of these objections?



The real red herring is your statement above that ''his objections are not logically dependent on a young earth.''
No, it is a factual statement borne up by rudimentary elements of logic.

To be fair though, your error here might well be that you did not understand what his formal objections actually are for the purposes of this discussion. See above.

Maybe he has conceded that, but his objections are still dependent on a young origin of life. So let him come clean and say whether he believes the earliest hard shelled life forms are about 500my old and existed hundreds of millions of years earlier than any human form.
Incorrect. As above, you are conflating other elements of his overall worldview with the scientific data that he formally offered as evidence against evolutionary theory. By "his objections," I do not mean, nor have ever meant, Aloimeh's overall worldview and set of beliefs. As I've stated so many times already, the latter have no bearing on the validity of the actual arguments that he submits as a challenge to the evolutionary narrative.

A "young earth," although defended by Aloimeh, was never submitted as a compelling challenge to evolution, at least not to the best of my knowledge.

(I asked for a simplification of the debate a few posts back. Maybe you and Aloimeh misssed the post. The above pretty much says the same thing.)
Now this is rich. One of the individuals largely responsible for leading the discussion down all manner of rabbit trails asks for a simplification. Well, you're in luck; you are free to reread Aloimeh's quotation above, or go back to the beginning of the thread for a more thorough elaboration of Aloimeh's (as yet unanswered) principal objections.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top