• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

100 Reasons Why Evolution Is Stupid (Part 1 of 11)

No it isn't. A dog doesn't change over time to be a horse, in fact, there is some pretty interesting "science" being taught in schools now that was proven by real science to be flat out wrong regarding horses but that is later on in the video series.
Click to expand...
Whoa. Here I was thinking horses came about through the breeding of dogs...
 
Safe-Keeper said:
Whoa. Here I was thinking horses came about through the breeding of dogs...
Click to expand...
In the middle ages, there were actually dogs bred to the size of horses, and brave warriors would actually ride them into battle. One king was offered a poodle by a travelling dog salesman, who claimed it was an economy model ("Very good on meat!"). The king, of course, replied, "Are you nuts? I wouldn't send a knight out on a dog like this!"
 
Radrook said:
So you can trace your ancestry back to a fish? Sounds like sci fi or fantasy to me.
Click to expand...

Radrook, tread lightly in this thread - David is a Christian who scoffs at your beliefs regarding not only biblical inerrancy but also many other core tenets of your faith.

Isn't it amazing? David (and Radrook) often bring up changes in scientific knowledge as proof that current knowledge may be flawed, yet - none of them can agree on a single sentence in the Bible. There are more denominations of Christianity than there are flavors of jelly beans, and many of them regard each other with absolute scorn (unless they are arguing with atheists, of course, only then do they put aside their significant differences and present a united front).

They chide science, seeing progress as weakness, while turning a blind eye to their own complete lack of agreement on just about anything.
 
Madalch said:
In the middle ages, there were actually dogs bred to the size of horses, and brave warriors would actually ride them into battle. One king was offered a poodle by a travelling dog salesman, who claimed it was an economy model ("Very good on meat!"). The king, of course, replied, "Are you nuts? I wouldn't send a knight out on a dog like this!"
Click to expand...


*Bap*
 
SonOfLaertes said:
Radrook, tread lightly in this thread - David is a Christian who scoffs at your beliefs regarding not only biblical inerrancy but also many other core tenets of your faith.

Isn't it amazing? David (and Radrook) often bring up changes in scientific knowledge as proof that current knowledge may be flawed, yet - none of them can agree on a single sentence in the Bible. There are more denominations of Christianity than there are flavors of jelly beans, and many of them regard each other with absolute scorn (unless they are arguing with atheists, of course, only then do they put aside their significant differences and present a united front).

They chide science, seeing progress as weakness, while turning a blind eye to their own complete lack of agreement on just about anything.
Click to expand...

Religious memes seem to have evolved such that their manifestations ignore each other when they don''t have a strong advantage. Survival of the evasive.
 
Twiler said:
Religious memes seem to have evolved such that their manifestations ignore each other when they don''t have a strong advantage. Survival of the evasive.
Click to expand...

David will continue to post replies on this thread, and Radrook will chime in on occasion when he feels that he has a good point to make, yet both will ignore the fundamental differences in their own perspective as it relates to their faith. They will take pleasure in trying to poke holes in scientific consensus, while skating blithely over the crippling lack of Biblical consensus.

Why don't they ever challenge each other in these threads? Surely their wildly divergent interpretations of Biblical wisdom impact the perspective they bring to these discussions, yet that lack of consensus never colors their approach while fighting the good fight with us heathens.

Why? I'll answer my own question. Because their inability to agree on just what the Bible is saying points to a weakness which is far more damaging then any change in scientific consensus . Change in scientific consensus describes a robust, open system of striving for Truth. Lack of Biblical consensus describes a crippling, fundamental problem at the heart of their faith that they would rather ignore by turning their faces from each other and engaging us.
 
David Henson said:
They also introduce a new concept, the 'kind' that has no definition. Why not using a term from the already existing taxonomic system?
Click to expand...
A Biblical kind is the divisions life forms which allows for cross fertility within its own limits. The boundary between kinds is drawn where fertilization is no longer allowed. Dogs make dogs, not cats.
Click to expand...

So... your definition of 'kind' is roughly the same as the definition that is commonly used for 'species'... Is that the definition you really want to go with?

In that case, please explain the London Underground mosquito. This is a recent species, evolved from (but not necessarily fertile with) above-ground species. The London subway tunnels are only around 100 years old, so this species isn't one that could have been around since "god created everything".

So, by your definition (i.e. requiring cross-fertility) we've seen a brand new 'kind' evolve.

See: http://www.gene.ch/gentech/1998/Jul-Sep/msg00188.html for a more complete description.

Now, what I suspect you will do, is probably use the argument but its still just a mosquito and thus not a new 'kind'... however, if you do, then you will have to come up with some other alternate definition of 'kind' (one that does not involve cross-fertility.)
 
This sort of thing seems to be something that the die-hard fundamentalists cling to. They are passionate and committed wholly to their faith, that they cannot perceive any other way. And they take their blind faith and passion and ascribe it to science, treating it as any other religion.

They can not be more wrong.

Science is the question to find a better answer than the one we currently have. And that answer is quite often 'I don't know'.

I don't know. A wonderful, fantastic answer. It drives us, it consumes us to find what what the real answer is. So to David, Radook, and 154, that is what scientists strive for. The answer to 'I don't know'. They want evidence, facts. things that can be seen, measured, felt.

To the religious, there is no 'I don't know'. There is only 'God'. What created the universe? 'God!' Where did we come from? GOD! What is lightning and thunder? God! What is over that next hill? GOD!

If that were the case, Humanity would still kbe cowering at the back of a cave while the witch doctor screamed that God is angry at us, and that is why the sky lights up and shakes.

But there were those who answered 'I don't know. Lets find out!'. And so we find out what is over that hill, beyond the ocean, what stars are made of. Where humans and all other life came from. How the universe began.

We still have to answer some things as 'I don't know'. What was there before the big bang? I don't know. But we may find out some day!

Even then, the answers may change. New evidence, new information, a new branch of mathematics. Science changes based on what we discover.

The problem with the author of the OP's video, is that he simply is not interested in the answer. In fact, he has his own personal answer. God. And nothing could possibly change that. He will throw away evidence, and manufacture other evidence out of whole cloth to fit his already built conclusion. He will mis-state, on purpose, what the science says in order to attempt to discredit it.

That leads us to Evolution. To be a little more specific, The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.

There is a great deal of evidence in favor of the theory to support the fact. We know life changes over time. There is no discounting that. The theory is the explanation on how, and why this occurs.

Will a dog ever give birth to something that is not a dog? In all probability, no. And the Theory of Evolution really doesn't state otherwise. Why? Because individuals do not evolve. Life is not pokemon. However, populations do evolve, and mainly over a very very very VERY great deal of time. Mutations occur within populations. Some harmful, some beneficial, and most neutral. The harmful ones will tend to be weeding out, and the beneficial ones will help the carriers of it spread their genes to the next generation.

Take a single population of dogs, for example. Split them up into two groups, and make sure they cannot interbreed. Place them into two differing environments, and give it oh.. lets say a 50 thousand generations. What will they look like? Will they be able to interbreed with each other? Good questions. And hard to speculate on. Chances are, however, they they would still superficially resemble the animals in generation 1, but the two new populations will be unable to inter breed with other, and may not even look like each other. They would be two different species, with a common ancestor, that would *no longer exist*.

The fossil record shows this. Genetics even shows this. This is the best answer we currently have to the question of 'How did life become so diverse?'

And yet, this could all be undone tomorrow. A scientist could have new evidence that what we know is in fact, not true. This evidence will be studied, and examined, and if indeed factual, a new theory will be written, or the existing theory will be altered. Science marches on.

There are many many branches of science. Some related, some not. Abiogenesis, for example, is related to Evolution, for example. But they do not rely on each other. While we now know the answer as to how life became so diverse, we are not quite so certain on where life began. But we've got some pretty good ideas and potential answers!

Same with the Big Bang. We know the Universe began from a single point. How big was it? What did it contain? What was there before the big bang? I don't know. But I can't wait to see the answers that are found!


Sadly, however, out there, the witch doctors are still screaming that we're going to die, because the thunder means that the gods are angry.
 
David Henson said:
A Biblical kind is the divisions life forms which allows for cross fertility within its own limits. The boundary between kinds is drawn where fertilization is no longer allowed. Dogs make dogs, not cats.
Click to expand...


There is a beautiful example given in Richard Dawkins' The Greatest Show On Earth of salamanders around a large lake somewhere in South America.

I can't remember the precise details, but as you make your way around the lake, you encounter salamanders that change in appearance quite drastically. The salamanders that are relatively close to each other as you go around the lake can interbreed, but are separated by distance, and therefore don't. If you put them in a cage together, however, they can.

But this is only the case with the salamanders that are relatively close to each other and, amazingly, only works clock-wise! If you take a salamander from the south-west and a salamander from the west, they can interbreed. Likewise, if you take a salamander from the east and a salamander from the south-east, they can interbreed. This works all the way around the lake. Side-by-side salamanders capable of breeding.

However, if you take a salamander from the south-west and try to breed it with a salamander from the south-east, it doesn't work! The micro-evolution happening gradually around the lake results in a different 'kind' of salamander, based on your definition of 'kind'. This is macro-evolution. The accumulation of micro-evolutionary changes over time.

Of course, you can now expand your definition of 'kind' accordingly.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom