• 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.

Should scientists debate creationists?

Should scientists debate creationists?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 40 32.8%
  • No.

    Votes: 68 55.7%
  • Other.

    Votes: 14 11.5%

  • Total voters
    122
  • Poll closed .
There are no big holes in evolution theory, maybe there were 30 years ago. Abiogenesis has not yet been determined.

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I think the leap from single-celled organisms to multi-cellular organisms is not well understood. I consider that a pretty big hole in evolution theory. However, more recent developments I'm unaware of may have filled in that missing area.
 
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I think the leap from single-celled organisms to multi-cellular organisms is not well understood. I consider that a pretty big hole in evolution theory. However, more recent developments I'm unaware of may have filled in that missing area.
I hate to wax philosophic; but, "not well understood" is not the same as "lacking in evidence."

There are so many biochemical similarities between uni- and multi-cellular biochemistry, it would be perverse to suggest they developed independently. At the most basic level- mammalian DNA, when inserted into a bacterium (or a yeast), produces the same protein, and vice versa. That is a huge connection. Moreover, bacteria and mammals use vitamin B12 similarly. Biotin is made and used by bacteria; it is also a human vitamin which is used similarly. I have vague memories of other connections.

The bottom line- Skeptigirl is correct, there are no major holes in evolutionary theory.

Consider that 20 years ago biologists postulated an evolutionary link between land mammals and whales that was only supported by anatomical comparisons. Since then, fossils have been found that demonstrate the evolution. The lack of fossils was a gap in evidence, not a "hole" in the theory. One can predict what should be found, not where and when.
 
Last edited:
It seems to me that "major gaps" is just another version of the "no missing links" criticism. As with missing links, every piece of information added creates two new gaps around it. If you label them both "major" then you have more major gaps in evolutionary theory.
 
I hate to wax philosophic; but, "not well understood" is not the same as "lacking in evidence."

There are so many biochemical similarities between uni- and multi-cellular biochemistry, it would be perverse to suggest they developed independently. At the most basic level- mammalian DNA, when inserted into a bacterium (or a yeast), produces the same protein, and vice versa. That is a huge connection. Moreover, bacteria and mammals use vitamin B12 similarly. Biotin is made and used by bacteria; it is also a human vitamin which is used similarly. I have vague memories of other connections.

The bottom line- Skeptigirl is correct, there are no major holes in evolutionary theory.

Consider that 20 years ago biologists postulated an evolutionary link between land mammals and whales that was only supported by anatomical comparisons. Since then, fossils have been found that demonstrate the evolution. The lack of fossils was a gap in evidence, not a "hole" in the theory. One can predict what should be found, not where and when.


Oh, I didn't mean to imply that there wasn't any evidence. I have heard, can't recall where now, that there is such diversity among bacteria that we are more closely related to some bacteria species than some bacteria species are to other bacteria species. Nor am I disputing evolutionary theory.

I do see the lack of understanding as major hole (or gap if you prefer that term) in the theory. It's apparently a big jump because it took a long long time to go from single cells organisms to multicellular ones. I have every confidence that eventually it will be filled in (though perhaps not in my lifetime), but I think it a mistake to claim there are no holes in response to the creationist's argument that there are. I think it better to acknowledge them than to pretend they don't exist just because you have faith that those holes will eventually be filled in.
 
Last edited:
Even if we were all to agree that the jump to multicelled is a big hole in our understanding that's probably not terribly relevant here. How many people who claim that human evolution is unexplained would point to that jump as the important unexplained gap?

This is the claim that originated this tangent, I believe.

There is still a lot of big holes in or understanding of evolution. In particular there are some significant leaps and changes that we can not exactly explain yet. We will probably eventually be able to explain it, but not yet.

This leaves open the possibility that maybe some outside influence might have come and altered our evolution in order to bring Humans forth. I strongly doubt this, but it is still a possibility we have not yet ruled out, because we can not yet explain that change which brought about modern Humans. This is one of the reasons I refer to Occam's Razor.
 
Last edited:
{snip} I do see the lack of understanding as major hole (or gap if you prefer that term) in the theory. {snip}
This is why I hate philosophy, it hinges on definitions: word-by-word, like scripture and laws. The data strongly support evolution of multicellular organisms from their unicellular precursors. I don't have a problem with not understanding explicitly how some particular event occured when there is good evidence for it. (Of course, I would like to understand it in detail.) That is a gap in our understanding of the detailed explanation of evolution, not a gap in the theory. The theory rests on data, not explanations.
 
re: Multi-celled transition.

Come to think of it, wouldn't this be one of the areas where a true spectrum of intermediate forms is still evident amongst living species?
 
I saw the Shermer/Hovind debate on YouTube. It does not seem like a debatable issue.

Creationists have so many misunderstandings about evolution and so many questions. Many of these questions get ignored but there is opportunity for education here. Better than a debate would be an educational question/answer session where people could ask a panel of experts from many fields about evolution and get responses tailored to their specific level of understanding (or ignorance).
 
Better than a debate would be an educational question/answer session where people could ask a panel of experts from many fields about evolution and get responses tailored to their specific level of understanding (or ignorance).
There is already a system in place which can do a nice job of that for those genuinely interested in learning. It's called school.
 
There is already a system in place which can do a nice job of that for those genuinely interested in learning. It's called school.


I guess that's my point. We should take the school to them. I think they are genuinely interested in learning but if the information they get does not make sense (and they are geting the wrong information) then they will reject it.
 
I saw the Shermer/Hovind debate on YouTube. It does not seem like a debatable issue.

Creationists have so many misunderstandings about evolution and so many questions. Many of these questions get ignored but there is opportunity for education here. Better than a debate would be an educational question/answer session where people could ask a panel of experts from many fields about evolution and get responses tailored to their specific level of understanding (or ignorance).

However, the scenario you describe would require an audience that was truly interested in listening and learning about evolutionary theory. I'm sure they have such panels in academic settings, but the purpose would be to understand details about evolutionary theory and not to poke holes in its fundamental validity. But the people interested in "debating" evolutionists aren't seeking information at all. Their goal is to obscure the facts in order to perpetuate a false notion that evolutionary theory is based on flimsy evidence and thus tantamount to a religious belief.
 
Rittjc: I blame you for the 30+ minutes I've wasted reading through these threads, seeing absolutely nothing of value. You are obviously a troll (an obvious one), and you've set up nothing but traps.

If a man insults you, you claim that he's a bigot and those damned atheists and evolution boogeymen are out to get you.

If you insult someone that takes offense, well, you don't care. You then repeat the process.

If someone brings up scientific data, you ignore that post and then claim that no one brings up science and "only resorts to personal attacks".

To all of the people that continue to attempt to debate with this man, I only have to say: Both bravo for your time and effort against a veritable brick wall, and numbskulls for continuing to do so even in the face of such an obvious troll that so blatantly ignores any scientific data in his attacks on science.

Bravo.
Numbskulls.

Seriously, there is no point here. Even fence sitters would have gotten bored about 148 posts ago.

:clap:
 
Actually, there are not big holes in evolution... it's just that we have so many contenders in regards to likely possibilities that we haven't figured out a way to nail down the specifics. But there are only teeny gaps-- and lots of clues about those gaps and lots of possible answers. This is true of both abiogenesis and multicellular organism. I'd be glad to go into specifics, but some people seem eager to believe there are great big gaps... and this keeps some of their pet beliefs alive-- so they are unlikely to let actual information fill those gaps nor just a general not knowing. They get mad if the gaps aren't big enough for the hopes they want to stick in there.

That's another reason not to debate creationists. They will be mad at you for giving them the information they ask for and refuse to acknowledge it and call YOU a liar.

Who wants to feel like you are messing with peoples "Santa Claus"?... Some people would rather believe a lie than to find out they've been fooling themselves. I'd rather not know something than believe a lie... sure lots of things are possible-- very few are probable-- only one answer is factual.
 
Life in ME is but my Energy, my electronics... Energy is never spent, conserved but for its expression... Life may be Eternal!
According to science so far no "May be's" about it... It is Eternal
Does anyone understand this, sufficiently to comprehend the immensity of Possibility?
Smack in front of your nose right now is a machine, that too can be Altered in expression as mutation can occur, both by accident of my ignorance and by desired design... Does this prove the origins of my computer?

I want to understand my neighbours, I want no Leather about me...
0+(-C)
 
Last edited:
Articulett,

Well, big holes can be in the eye of the beholder.

A number of people I have worked with and studied with consider there to be big holes or gaps in our knowledge and understanding in evolution.

But, this same group of people my self included believes that the general structure/concept of evolution is correct beyond reasonable doubt. Only the most fantastic of possibilities could allow for evolution to be truly false and it is very unlikely that these most fantastic possibilities are true.

One such possibility is that something has such total control over our very existence that it could have falsified the evidence for evolution while in fact our existence was much more recently created. Such a possibility can not be disproved. Neither can it be proved.

This begins the argument between true believers in God and true believers in Evolution. Between the two, true believers in Evolution can give a great body of evidence to support their belief.

But, the true believers in Evolution can not prove “God does not exist”.

However, we can go through the philosophical exercise of how something could have such control over our existence as to have recently created us and fabricate evidence that we have been around much longer. One of the benefits from this is considering what makes more sense if such a fantastic possibility, however remote and small, was true.

The further problem true believers in God have is when their belief has serious logical flaws.

By discussing the possibility of our being in an existence created by something with total power over us, we can discuss what this would logically imply about the creator(s) and some of their motives. This then can be compared to what true believers in God state and we can compare which has less logical flaws.

For example, if something fabricated evidence for Evolution, why? What would be a logical motivation for doing so? Is there anything in the Bible to support this logical reason for fabricating Evolution?
 
...

One such possibility is that something has such total control over our very existence that it could have falsified the evidence for evolution while in fact our existence was much more recently created. Such a possibility can not be disproved. Neither can it be proved.

This begins the argument between true believers in God and true believers in Evolution. Between the two, true believers in Evolution can give a great body of evidence to support their belief.

But, the true believers in Evolution can not prove “God does not exist”.

However, we can go through the philosophical exercise of how something could have such control over our existence as to have recently created us and fabricate evidence that we have been around much longer. One of the benefits from this is considering what makes more sense if such a fantastic possibility, however remote and small, was true.

The further problem true believers in God have is when their belief has serious logical flaws.

By discussing the possibility of our being in an existence created by something with total power over us, we can discuss what this would logically imply about the creator(s) and some of their motives. This then can be compared to what true believers in God state and we can compare which has less logical flaws.

For example, if something fabricated evidence for Evolution, why? What would be a logical motivation for doing so? Is there anything in the Bible to support this logical reason for fabricating Evolution?
Oppressed, you ignored my reply to this same rhetoric and now you repeat it addressed to Articulett.

Excuse me for accusing because I have no 'proof' but you sound like a believer who thinks by some BS logic you will either convert people, or just fortify your own belief that science does not disprove your god and you are safe to continue in your belief.

How about addressing my reply to this before repeating it and ignoring me?

To refresh your memory I said:
There are no big holes in evolution theory, maybe there were 30 years ago. Abiogenesis has not yet been determined.

As far as you can't prove gods exist or don't, that's a philosophical exercise only. I can study anthropology of myths and show all religions are man made. I can examine religious texts and determine that they have clear evidence of being written by humans and no evidence whatsoever that those humans had any contact with real gods when they made up the myths.

Any god that interacts with people has to have an effect which is measurable. No gods have been detected.

That leaves an unlikely god who either hides his tracks by making us forget his actions or only answering prayers when we aren't looking or a god who never interacts with the Universe and then you have the problem of how would we be writing religious texts about such a god then?

So if you want to waste time on a philosophical exercise that science can't prove invisible pink unicorns are in my backyard, have at it. I find such exercises more like rationalizing the cognitive dissonance of scientists who can't let go of their god beliefs.

As to evidence life was seeded here in a meteorite or comet or aliens experimented on some chimpanzees, the genetic evidence shows all evidence so far points to a single emergence of life. There is nothing unusual between the genome of the great apes and humans that natural selection cannot account for (no alien DNA). When we figure out how the first life forms began we'll know it the conditions existed on Earth or had to have started somewhere else. I'll wait for the evidence.

So what specifically are you referring to when you make the claim I should leave my mind open to some "thing" (IE gods) having had a hand in things? Because I ain't buying it.
 
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I think the leap from single-celled organisms to multi-cellular organisms is not well understood. I consider that a pretty big hole in evolution theory. However, more recent developments I'm unaware of may have filled in that missing area.
Our genetic history traces the human genome back to those single celled organisms. We know the approximate time line and likely sequence. There are reasonable hypotheses as to how organisms progressed.

It depends on what you consider a "hole" in this discussion. If you consider a hole merely that the details are not yet known, then there are holes. But if you describe a "hole" such as Oppressed did, as something we might need a designer to explain, then there are no holes. The genetic trail tells us we don't need a designer and it also is very clear that evolution theory is correct. We have and continue to refine our paradigm of natural selection since Darwin first proposed it. I call that having a few areas out of focus. I don't call that being full of holes.

If Darwin's theory about the evolution of life, or natural selection, is true, from what did life start evolving, and how was the first species conceived?
Answer

Provided by Jayatri Das, HHMI predoctoral fellow, Princeton University

First, let me clear up a common misconception about the terms "evolution" and "natural selection." They are not interchangeable. The biological definition of "evolution" refers to changes in gene frequencies over time, which occur as organisms descend through inheritance from previously existing organisms. The observation that organisms change over time was not new in Darwin's time. Darwin's contribution was to describe the mechanism by which evolution occurs—that is, natural selection. Natural selection refers to the differential reproduction of individuals within a species such that individuals with beneficial characteristics produce more offspring than those without, increasing the gene frequencies of those beneficial characteristics in the next generation.

Now let's get to the origin of life. One thing to keep in mind is that it took a very long time and many little steps for the first life to develop. No "first species" suddenly arose from the primordial soup.

The initial question is, How did organic biological molecules arise? Because of the favorable prebiotic conditions on Earth, the formation of these organic molecules was not completely random. For example, radiation from the sun provided enough energy to initiate chemical reactions, the elements necessary to make organic compounds existed naturally, the Earth's stable orbit around the sun eliminated large temperature fluctuations, and the presence of water provided a solvent for reactions to occur. Recent discoveries from space exploration support the idea of such a prebiotic environment. Scientists have shown that organic molecules can be spontaneously synthesized under similar conditions in the laboratory. When these molecules polymerize, or condense into chains of similar molecules, the basic building blocks of life, including nucleic acids, lipids, proteins, and sugars, are formed.

The next question is, How did these polymers give rise to cells? The interactions of molecules with each other are dependent upon the molecules' affinity to water. The bimolecular layers of phospholipids that make up cell membranes form rapidly because the hydrophobic ends orient toward each other while the hydrophilic ends remain exposed to water. Wave action of the surrounding solvent causes these bimolecular sheets to form vesicles, showing that the structural basis for cells can form spontaneously.

What about the biological information that is carried by each cell? The origin of self-replicating carriers of genetic information is still an unanswered question. The most common idea is that RNA may have predated both DNA and proteins because RNA has been shown to act as both an information-carrying template and a reaction-catalyzing "ribozyme." These functions are thought to have been later transferred to DNA and proteins, which have greater chemical stability and therefore degrade less quickly than RNA does. Take these molecules, put them into lipid membranes to provide a more stable environment, and you basically have the first single-celled organism, similar to bacteria that still exist today.

The next major step in the evolution of biological complexity was multicellularity. The benefits of multicellularity include cell specialization and more-efficient food gathering. Although the mechanisms by which multicellularity arose are not known, some existing animals provide clues as to how and why single cells started to aggregate. For example, slime molds and sponges are loose assemblages of cells that can survive independently but show specialization when they aggregate. The diversity of multicellular organisms expanded rapidly during a period known as the Cambrian explosion. Changing geological and atmospheric conditions during this time period are thought to have increased the number of available habitats for animals. Primitive multicellular organisms could then specialize differently, become more complex, and take advantage of the newly available resources. This first explosion of biological diversity was the foundation from which most complex life existing today evolved.

For a more detailed explanation and some alternative theories on how biological molecules could have arisen on primitive Earth, see:

http://www.americanscientist.org/articles/
95articles/cdeduve.html

For information on the fossil evidence for evolution, see Evolution and the Fossil Record, by J. Pojeta Jr. and D.A. Springer (Alexandria, Va.: American Geological Institute and The Paleontological Society, 2001). The online version can be found at:

www.agiweb.org/news/evolution.pdf

An introductory textbook on evolutionary biology will provide a basic overview of the evolution of complex organisms and the processes involved. See, for example, M.W. Strickberger's Evolution, 3rd ed. (Sudbury, Mass.: Jones and Bartlett, 2000).

7/10/02
 
...

I do see the lack of understanding as major hole (or gap if you prefer that term) in the theory. It's apparently a big jump because it took a long long time to go from single cells organisms to multicellular ones. I have every confidence that eventually it will be filled in (though perhaps not in my lifetime), but I think it a mistake to claim there are no holes in response to the creationist's argument that there are. I think it better to acknowledge them than to pretend they don't exist just because you have faith that those holes will eventually be filled in.
I don't think we disagree as much as we are interpreting the intent of the statement, "there are holes in the theory" quite differently.

"Holes in the theory" connotates a theory still in question. I think that is just not a useful way to describe the state of the current science. Evolution theory is complete. What isn't complete are some of the details in a few specific areas.

The theory of plate tectonics is complete, but we can't predict earthquakes. Would you describe that as "holes in the theory of plate tectonics"? Most people wouldn't.

We have a ways to go on the abiogenesis theory which preceded evolution. We know it occurred. There is no evidence any gods were involved. We still need to determine where and how. Should we leave pixies in the realm of possibilities just because we haven't gotten those details figured out yet? It is time we outgrew this clinging to the idea gods were involved in any process in the Universe. It's like a superstition the scientists who still believe cannot yet let go of. But if you want to leave the possibility of gods in the process then you better leave pixies in there too. Because you have equal evidence for either.
 

Back
Top Bottom