Conquer Club

Evolutionary Contradictions

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

What do you think about Evolution?

 
Total votes : 0

Evolutionary Contradictions

Postby vtmarik on Fri Sep 01, 2006 3:51 am

Whilst stumbling around the internet I came across this webpage:
http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/evolution.html

This site is a claim-by-claim rebuttal to some of the arguments that creationists have against evolution. Since Evolution v. Creationism is a different topic than Logic Dictates, I decided to start a new thread.

Inspired, in part, by Truman; this thread is an attempt to help remove some of the uncertainty regarding the science behind evolution. Therefore, I welcome you to post your various theories on why evolution isn't correct, and I will answer them. I will cite my sources whenever possible.

So, post some uncertainties/contradictions/problems with the science, and I will answer them.

RULES:
1) Only 5 contradictions to a post, I don't have as much free time as I used to when it comes to my free time.
2) No flaming, please. I understand if you don't think evolution is good science, but there's no need for "If you believe in evolution you're a sinner" or any of that nonsense.
3) Let's try and keep the religious/political rhetoric out of this discussion, ok? This isn't a thread about bashing christianity [anymore], this thread is simply an information bank.


Now, let's all have fun.
Last edited by vtmarik on Fri Sep 01, 2006 11:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Initiate discovery! Fire the Machines! Throw the switch Igor! THROW THE F***ING SWITCH!
User avatar
Cadet vtmarik
 
Posts: 3863
Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 9:51 am
Location: Riding on the waves of fear and loathing.

Postby heavycola on Fri Sep 01, 2006 5:25 am

Nice site. here's another goodie: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Bill Hicks wrote:I actually asked one of these guys, OK, Dinosaur fossils - how does that fit into your scheme of life?
He said, "Dinosaur fossils? God put those there to test our faith." I think God put you here to test my faith, Dude. You believe that? "uh huh." Does that trouble anyone here? The idea that God.. might be.. fuckin' with our heads?
Image
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class heavycola
 
Posts: 2925
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 10:22 am
Location: Maailmanvalloittajat

Postby jay_a2j on Fri Sep 01, 2006 8:56 am

This thread should die for obvios reasons. Its been discussed in Logic Dictates. And heavey it really doesn't support your cause by telling everyone you know a guy who said, "God put them here to test us". As I am sure I can find people who say we were beamed down from outterspace from the mothership and were "created" by alien lifeforms with one eye. And then we "evolved". Making Darwin look like a nut job. :wink:
THE DEBATE IS OVER...
PLAYER57832 wrote:Too many of those who claim they don't believe global warming are really "end-timer" Christians.

JESUS SAVES!!!
User avatar
Lieutenant jay_a2j
 
Posts: 4293
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 1:22 am
Location: In the center of the R3VOJUTION!

Postby Nappy Bone Apart on Fri Sep 01, 2006 11:35 am

I wanted to vote for evolution, but the last option was too correct to pass on.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Nappy Bone Apart
 
Posts: 250
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 2:02 pm
Location: Filming Owl and hendy's mom together

Postby D.IsleRealBrown on Fri Sep 01, 2006 11:42 am

Where is the "God is an attempt to destroy reality" option?
ImageImageImage
User avatar
Lieutenant D.IsleRealBrown
 
Posts: 668
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 1:48 pm
Location: Abroad

Postby mightyal on Fri Sep 01, 2006 11:46 am

A little more of Bill Hicks on Christianity.

"Fundamentalist Christianity. Fascinating. These people actually believe the world is 12 thousand years old. Swear to God! Based on what? I asked them. 'Well, we looked at all the people in the Bible, and we added them up all the way back to Adam and Eve, their ages ā€“ 12 thousand years.' Well, how fucking scientific! Okay. I didn't know that you'd gone to so much trouble there. That's good.
You believe the world's 12 thousand years old? 'That's right.' Okay, I got one word to ask you. A one word question. Ready? 'Uh-uh.' Dinosaurs.
You know, the world's 12 thousand years old and dinosaurs existed, and they existed in that time ... you'd think it would have been mentioned in the fucking Bible at some point. 'And lo, Jesus and the disciples walked to Nazareth. But the trail was blocked by a giant brontosaurus ... with a splinter in his paw. And O, the disciples did run a-shrieking: "What a big fucking lizard, Lord!" But Jesus was unafraid, and he took the splinter from the brontosaurus's paw, and the big lizard became his friend. And Jesus sent him to Scotland where he lived in a loch for O, so many years, inviting thousands of American tourists to bring their fat fucking families and their fat dollar bills. And O, Scotland did praise the Lord: "Thank you, Lord. Thank you, Lord. Thank you, Lord."'"

"You ever notice how people who believe in creationism look really unevolved?"

"A lot of Christians wear crosses around their necks. You think when Jesus comes back, he ever wants to see a fucking cross? Kind of like going up to Jackie Onassis with a rifle pendant on, you know."
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
- Galileo Galilei
User avatar
Captain mightyal
 
Posts: 280
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2006 12:33 pm
Location: Banging the hag whilst Owl is busy banging hendy's mum

Postby vtmarik on Fri Sep 01, 2006 12:51 pm

jay_a2j wrote:This thread should die for obvios reasons. Its been discussed in Logic Dictates. And heavey it really doesn't support your cause by telling everyone you know a guy who said, "God put them here to test us". As I am sure I can find people who say we were beamed down from outterspace from the mothership and were "created" by alien lifeforms with one eye. And then we "evolved". Making Darwin look like a nut job. :wink:


It's been mentioned in Logic Dictates. Here we can have what is known as an on-topic debate, since evolutionary fact has no bearing on whether or not God exists.

Did you read the site?

D.IsleRealBrown wrote:Where is the "God is an attempt to destroy reality" option?


I didn't want to invite more trolls to enter this conversation than necessary.
Initiate discovery! Fire the Machines! Throw the switch Igor! THROW THE F***ING SWITCH!
User avatar
Cadet vtmarik
 
Posts: 3863
Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 9:51 am
Location: Riding on the waves of fear and loathing.

Postby Truman on Fri Sep 01, 2006 6:02 pm

I wish I could post my four-part long debate I had with Jacob Geri about this subject (he's owner of Infidels.com by the way). But, I guess I can't. Many are close-minded about what I say since they're annoyed by my arguments which actually kick their little world of "scientific evolution" into the gutter.

All I've got to say is I don't care to debate about creation-evolution unless it's narrowed down to one subject at a time. If this was done, I might be interested in putting two more cents into the thread.

EDIT: By the way, Vtmarik, could you make your signature a bit smaller? It's a little large.
User avatar
Private Truman
 
Posts: 224
Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 9:33 am
Location: Texas, U.S.A.

Postby D.IsleRealBrown on Fri Sep 01, 2006 6:50 pm

Truman wrote: By the way, Vtmarik, could you make your signature a bit smaller? It's a little large.
ImageImageImage
User avatar
Lieutenant D.IsleRealBrown
 
Posts: 668
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 1:48 pm
Location: Abroad

Postby Pilate on Fri Sep 01, 2006 6:55 pm

Truman wrote:I wish I could post my four-part long debate I had with Jacob Geri about this subject (he's owner of Infidels.com by the way). But, I guess I can't. Many are close-minded about what I say since they're annoyed by my arguments which actually kick their little world of "scientific evolution" into the gutter..


Actually, you're the most close-minded of us all. Seriously, when are you going to stop accusing others of what you yourself are guilty of. Geez
User avatar
Colonel Pilate
 
Posts: 382
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 10:21 pm
Location: Toronto, Canada

Postby mightyal on Fri Sep 01, 2006 7:24 pm

Truman. I declare pot - kettle on the sig accusation.
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
- Galileo Galilei
User avatar
Captain mightyal
 
Posts: 280
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2006 12:33 pm
Location: Banging the hag whilst Owl is busy banging hendy's mum

Postby D.IsleRealBrown on Fri Sep 01, 2006 7:57 pm

Val Kilmer is cookware?
ImageImageImage
User avatar
Lieutenant D.IsleRealBrown
 
Posts: 668
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 1:48 pm
Location: Abroad

Postby vtmarik on Fri Sep 01, 2006 11:32 pm

Truman wrote:EDIT: By the way, Vtmarik, could you make your signature a bit smaller? It's a little large.


It'll be gone in a couple days, It's a placeholder for something extra special.


Ok, i'll edit the origin post so I can focus this thread a little better.

Truman has a thread where he answers confusions about the Bible, so as a public service I'd like to do the same with evolutionary contradictions.
Initiate discovery! Fire the Machines! Throw the switch Igor! THROW THE F***ING SWITCH!
User avatar
Cadet vtmarik
 
Posts: 3863
Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 9:51 am
Location: Riding on the waves of fear and loathing.

Postby Truman on Sat Sep 02, 2006 12:36 am

Ok, here's one.

Evolutionism claims that vestigals prove evolution.

Well for one, they don't prove anything since none exist, and plus, why would losing something propose that evolution could have happened anyway? "Yes boys and girls, we slowly lost everything and that's how we got it all." :roll:

So, my contradiction is, evolutionists propose that there are such things as vestigal structures in any living organism proves evolution, when there have been none shown.

By the way, I don't know why men have nipples, but that doesn't prove they're vestigal. We probably just haven't figured out what they're for and in later years probably will. Just wanted to get that through. :wink:
User avatar
Private Truman
 
Posts: 224
Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 9:33 am
Location: Texas, U.S.A.

Postby reverend_kyle on Sat Sep 02, 2006 1:56 am

Nappy Bone Apart wrote:I wanted to vote for evolution, but the last option was too correct to pass on.
DANCING MUSTARD FOR POOP IN '08!
User avatar
Sergeant reverend_kyle
 
Posts: 9250
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 4:08 pm
Location: 1000 post club

Postby 2dimes on Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:10 am

Hendy, Patroclus...
User avatar
Corporal 2dimes
 
Posts: 12962
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 1:08 pm
Location: Pepperoni Hug Spot.

Postby vtmarik on Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:40 am

Truman wrote:Ok, here's one.

Evolutionism claims that vestigals prove evolution.

Well for one, they don't prove anything since none exist, and plus, why would losing something propose that evolution could have happened anyway? "Yes boys and girls, we slowly lost everything and that's how we got it all." :roll:

So, my contradiction is, evolutionists propose that there are such things as vestigal structures in any living organism proves evolution, when there have been none shown.

By the way, I don't know why men have nipples, but that doesn't prove they're vestigal. We probably just haven't figured out what they're for and in later years probably will. Just wanted to get that through. :wink:


Vestigal Structures. First proposed by an anonymous author in 1844.

In evolution, an organ is considered vestigal when it's main function is shut off by evolution.

Vestigial structures are often homologous to structures that are functioning normally in other species. Therefore, vestigial structures can be considered evidence for evolution, the process by which beneficial heritable traits arise in population over an extended period of time. The existence of vestigial organs can be attributed to changes in the environment and behavior patterns of the organism in question. As the function of the structure is no longer beneficial for survival, the likelihood that future offspring will inherit the "normal" form of the structure decreases.

The vestigial versions of the structure can be compared to the original version of the structure in other species in order to determine the homology of a vestigial structure. Homologous structures indicate common ancestry with those organisms that have a functional version of the structure.


While they alone do not prove evolution, they add weight to the theory.

The best example of a vestigal structure is the human appendix, which currently has no purpose other than to get infected and get cut out.

The vermiform appendix is a vestige of the cecum, an organ that was used to digest cellulose by humans' herbivorous ancestors. Analogous organs in other animals similar to humans continue to perform that function, whereas other meat-eating animals may have similarly diminished appendices. The modern functionality of the appendix is still controversial in the field of human physiology, although most scientists and physicians believe that it has little or no function.


They also exist in other species:

In whales and other cetaceans, one can find small vestigial leg bones deeply buried within the back of the body. These are remnants of their land-living ancestors' legs. Many whales also have undeveloped, unused, pelvis bones in the anterior part of their torsos.


The controversy over Vestigal Structures:

Controversy

Because vestigial organs are used as supporting evidence for evolution, some creationists oppose the validity of the idea. They question whether these organs are actually useless, since they believe that God gave each organism its organs for a specific reason and use.

Those who question the existence of vestigial organs usually claim a different definition for vestigial, giving a strict interpretation that an organ must be utterly useless to qualify.[13] This is a definition often used in dictionaries[14] and children's encyclopedias.[15] Biology textbooks[16][17] and scientific encyclopedias[1] usually describe an organ as vestigial if it does not serve the same function in the modern animal as the cognate organ served in an ancestor, even if the modern organ serves a completely different use (preadaptation).

Those who consider the true meaning of vestigial to be "completely without use" tend to claim that the meaning has been changed over time as structures thought to be vestigial were found to have other uses.[18] However, documentation indicates that from the theory's beginnings in the 19th century, vestigial structures have invariably been understood to "sometimes retain their potentiality"[19], becoming either "wholly or in part functionless".[20] It was thought that "not infrequently the degenerating organ can be turned to account in some other way".[21]

An example of the dispute is the gas bladder of many fish, which is thought to be a vestigial lung, "left over" from the occasionally-air-gasping common ancestor of ray-finned fish and land vertebrates.



Source: Wikipedia. (August 2006). Vestigal structure. Retrieved September 2, 2006 from Wikipedia Web Site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigal_organs

Further Reading: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc ... l#vestiges
Initiate discovery! Fire the Machines! Throw the switch Igor! THROW THE F***ING SWITCH!
User avatar
Cadet vtmarik
 
Posts: 3863
Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 9:51 am
Location: Riding on the waves of fear and loathing.

Postby mightyal on Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:45 am

2dimes wrote:Hendy, Patroclus...
examples of vestigals?
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
- Galileo Galilei
User avatar
Captain mightyal
 
Posts: 280
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2006 12:33 pm
Location: Banging the hag whilst Owl is busy banging hendy's mum

Postby vtmarik on Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:47 am

mightyal wrote:
2dimes wrote:Hendy, Patroclus...
examples of vestigals?


Not really, more like genetic drift.
Initiate discovery! Fire the Machines! Throw the switch Igor! THROW THE F***ING SWITCH!
User avatar
Cadet vtmarik
 
Posts: 3863
Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 9:51 am
Location: Riding on the waves of fear and loathing.

Postby jay_a2j on Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:50 am

Speech is a learned behavior. And don't give me the "language evolved" crap. Its learned, therefore it must be taught. Who taught the apelike men how to speak?




Vtmarik wrote:
The best example of a vestigal structure is the human appendix, which currently has no purpose other than to get infected and get cut out.



Maybe it controls common sense? I still have mine!
THE DEBATE IS OVER...
PLAYER57832 wrote:Too many of those who claim they don't believe global warming are really "end-timer" Christians.

JESUS SAVES!!!
User avatar
Lieutenant jay_a2j
 
Posts: 4293
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 1:22 am
Location: In the center of the R3VOJUTION!

Postby vtmarik on Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:55 am

jay_a2j wrote:Speech is a learned behavior. And don't give me the "language evolved" crap. Its learned, therefore it must be taught. Who taught the apelike men how to speak?


Are you talking about language or the process of forming phonemic sounds?

The evolution of speech follows two theories. The first is the theory that our ability to speak is a side-benefit to the evolution of our ability to swallow and not choke.

Article: "Chewing Over the Evolution of Speech" by David Wolman

For those convinced human superiority stems from our ability to vocalize like no other creature on Earth, this one might be tough to swallow: Japanese researchers studying chimpanzees recently found the biological machinery behind speech is less distinct than previously thought, and may have evolved in part from a selection pressure wholly unrelated to speech-the development of our swallowing mechanism.

Takeshi Nishimura of the Primate Research Institute at Kyoto University in Japan believes the descent of the larynx evolved not as part one of speech development-even though it may have ended up playing that role-but rather to decrease the chance for choking. The evolution of a swallowing system, Nishimura said, provided ample space and machinery to keep our food going one way and air going another. The ability to use that air to speak came much later.

Humans can talk because the vocal chords in the larynx, the muscles of the tongue affixed to a bone called the hyoid, and the space in and around all of this up to our lips (collectively known as the vocal tract) are situated and coordinated in a manner enabling us to create a variety of sounds in rapid succession and in a single breath.

Many scientists had believed the descent of the larynx during infancy and early childhood was not only a critical foundation for speech development, but also a phenomenon unique to modern humans. Nishimura and his colleagues used magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to chart the structural development of three infant chimpanzees and discovered their larynges also descended during infancy, as in human infants. Based on previous studies, Nishimura had hypothesized that primates too had falling larynges, as it were, but the MRI results provided even stronger evidence.

"We used to think speech evolved in human lineage after the split from our Neanderthal ancestors, but our research shows that is not the case," said Nishimura. "The mechanism for the descent of the larynx is in fact composed of two phenomena that are not simultaneous: hyoid descent and larynx descent relative to the hyoid bone."

Although both of these anatomical moves are necessary for speech development, chimps experience only the descent of the larynx, leaving the hyoid too high for speaking. If it were lower, could chimpanzees talk? Perhaps, said Nishimura.

The importance of the descent of the larynx has been overemphasized, said Tecumseh Fitch, a lecturer in psychology at Harvard University. The recent paper out of Kyoto makes it "even more clear that it is not the descent of the larynx per se that is key for speech production in humans."

Rather, Fitch continued, it is the "the descent of the tongue root and hyoid bone, and the resulting re-configuration of the tongue and vocal tract" that have turned modern humans into talkers. It turns out these evolutionary steps were separate phenomena, and that one may have preceded the other by millions of years. The gift of gab, it appears, stems from the very basic need to feed.


Further Reading: The Evolution of Speech
That's a PDF



As for the evolution of language, I'm afraid that there is much uncertainty in that field. [Article Here] But, thanks to new technologies, the field has undergone a revival of sorts. Unfortunately, I don't have much information of the origin of language.

Further Reading: Wikipedia, Origin of Language

Maybe it controls common sense? I still have mine!


And I have mine. So, that theory's out. :wink:
Initiate discovery! Fire the Machines! Throw the switch Igor! THROW THE F***ING SWITCH!
User avatar
Cadet vtmarik
 
Posts: 3863
Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 9:51 am
Location: Riding on the waves of fear and loathing.

Postby 2dimes on Sat Sep 02, 2006 10:21 am

Evolutionary contradictions al.
User avatar
Corporal 2dimes
 
Posts: 12962
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 1:08 pm
Location: Pepperoni Hug Spot.

Postby Jolly Roger on Sat Sep 02, 2006 10:53 am

jay_a2j wrote:Speech is a learned behavior. And don't give me the "language evolved" crap. Its learned, therefore it must be taught. Who taught the apelike men how to speak?




Vtmarik wrote:
The best example of a vestigal structure is the human appendix, which currently has no purpose other than to get infected and get cut out.



Maybe it controls common sense? I still have mine!


Would you like to re-think your assertion that language is learned and therefore must be taught? I think you should. (Hint: Who taught Edison how to make a lightbulb?)
User avatar
Lieutenant Jolly Roger
 
Posts: 346
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 11:46 am

Postby jay_a2j on Sat Sep 02, 2006 11:10 am

Jolly Roger wrote:
jay_a2j wrote:Speech is a learned behavior. And don't give me the "language evolved" crap. Its learned, therefore it must be taught. Who taught the apelike men how to speak?




Vtmarik wrote:
The best example of a vestigal structure is the human appendix, which currently has no purpose other than to get infected and get cut out.



Maybe it controls common sense? I still have mine!


Would you like to re-think your assertion that language is learned and therefore must be taught? I think you should. (Hint: Who taught Edison how to make a lightbulb?)



Would you like to speak with a behavior scientist? Because speech is a learned behavior.

Invention is not a learned behavior, its trial and error. :wink:
THE DEBATE IS OVER...
PLAYER57832 wrote:Too many of those who claim they don't believe global warming are really "end-timer" Christians.

JESUS SAVES!!!
User avatar
Lieutenant jay_a2j
 
Posts: 4293
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 1:22 am
Location: In the center of the R3VOJUTION!

Postby mightyal on Sat Sep 02, 2006 11:19 am

2dimes wrote:Evolutionary contradictions al.
No intelligent designer would produce hendy and patroclus.
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
- Galileo Galilei
User avatar
Captain mightyal
 
Posts: 280
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2006 12:33 pm
Location: Banging the hag whilst Owl is busy banging hendy's mum

Next

Return to Out, out, brief candle!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mookiemcgee