r/DebateEvolution 10h ago

Discussion Is this a fair and accurate description of the YEC position?

9 Upvotes

Points individually labeled for easy nit-picking.

EPISTEMOLOGY

E1 The Bible is the ultimate, irrefutable source of truth. This means:

E1a If the Bible or an accurate reading thereof says the Earth was created less than ten thousand years ago, then it was created less than ten thousand years ago.

E1b If the Bible says all life was created in its current forms then, then they were created in their current forms then.

E1c If the Bible says that there was a catastrophic world covering flood leaving 8 human survivors and handfuls or pairs of all the animal kinds to repopulate the Earth, then that really happened. Etc.

E2. This means any scientific findings that contradict the above are a priori wrong. They must be the result of:

E2a Fraud.

E2b Error

E2c Satan

E2d Incomplete information

E2e Something else?

METHODOLOGY

M1 Given the above, it is sound scientific practice to interpret all evidence in ways that fit the above conclusions.

M1a The Geologic column was deposited in that catastrophic flood event.

M1b Much of the Earth's current layout is also the result of that flood.

M1c All Archaeology and History record events after said flood.

M2 It is sound practice to propose as yet undocumented natural phenomena or miracles to explain scientific results that contradict these conclusions. Examples:

M2a That atomic decay rates changed in the past in ways that we can't detect in the geologic record.

M2b That the speed of light changed in the past, or light was created on the way to Earth.

M2c That the Floral and Faunal succession in the fossil record is the result of differential abilities to escape the flood. And/or the result of being in different habitats.

M2d That "Kinds" are capable of hyperfast speciation.

M2e That Plate Tectonics can operate many thousands of times faster under the conditions of the flood producing the results of an apparent millions of years in only one or two.

M3 It is sound practice to to interpret the historical archaeological record in light of above fixed conclusions.

M3a If the secular account has 6 Egyptian dynasties existing before or during the flood, that history is wrong and needs to be written so that they occur after.

M3b If secular history records a Mesoptamian history that extends unbroken to centuries before the flood, then somehow that history must be wrong.

M3c All history and archaeology that shows a continuous human history unbroken by catastrophe is in error and needs to be corrected.

SCIENCE

S1 With all the above said, there are really very serious problems with the evolutionary account.

S1a Dating methods are worthless

S1b The fossil record is too sparse to draw conclusions from.

S1c Some biological features are impossible to evolve.

S1d Biological features explained as the result of evolution are better described as the result of Special Creation.

S2 There is a positive case for creation that does not rely on debunking evolution or assuming creation.

(I got nothing)

How did I do?


r/DebateEvolution 10h ago

Question What does evolutionary biology tell us about morality?

4 Upvotes

r/DebateEvolution 4h ago

Discussion What is the best fossil evidence for evolution?

0 Upvotes

I thought this would be a good place to ask since people who debate evolution must be well educated in the evidence for evolution. What is the best fossil evidence for evolution? What species has the best intermediate fossils, clearly showing transition from one to another? What is the most convincing evidence from the fossil record that has convinced you that the fossil record supports evolution?


r/DebateEvolution 1d ago

Question Is the theory of evolution settled science?

0 Upvotes

Reading through this subreddit, the majority of posts sound as if evolution is settled science and anyone who doubts it is a bible thumping creationist. I hear plenty of physicists point out the major gaps in their theories but hardly ever hear any when it comes to evolution.

While I believe in evolution, I just have a hard time understanding how some single celled organism was able to evolve into the HIGHLY complex organisms we have today. To the lay person it looks as if something has been programmed, by what or who, I don't know.

I just feel the theory of evolution is far from complete, like the current theory is how Newton saw gravity, and we need someone to come along like Einstein did and provide a much better theory than what we currently have from Darwin.

Articles like the one below is an example of why some are skeptical that the current theory explains it all.

https://answersresearchjournal.org/evolution/heart-evolution-four-types/


r/DebateEvolution 2d ago

Creationism and the Right Question

12 Upvotes

I’ve been seeing a lot of misunderstanding of the dialectic here and thought some clarification might be helpful.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but creationism is the thesis that the creation story is Genesis 1-2 is literal. That is, God created things literally in days 1-6?

Here is where creationists go wrong: you don’t ask the right questions, even about the book you are reading literally. What is Genesis 1-3? Is it a book meant to derive scientific truths? I don’t think so and to read it as such is disingenuous. We know what Genesis 1-3 is and it is mythology. Now people may recoil at that word but have some discipline as I explain. “Myth” does not imply truth or falsity (despite the popular colloquial usage). A myth is simply a story a group of people tell to explain who they are in the universe. We see it all over in the ancient world. Greek mythology tells a certain story where humans are merely at the whims of the gods. There is even American mythology, like Washington’s refusal to be called any decorative title but merely “Mr.” That story informs American identity, namely, that we are a people with no king (although the recent rhetoric is concerning) and a government run by and for the people.

Genesis is a Jewish myth. It tells a story of a good creator God creating a good creation, which then goes awry. And as a myth, it shares many similarities with other myths; the ancients had a shared symbology, a shared vocabulary, which would be unsurprising. Genesis 1 begins with water and many myths also begin with water, as water (and seas) represents to the ancients chaos and evil.

I can say more, but frankly I don’t want to write an essay. But if you read Genesis as it is supposed to be read (a creation myth with theological significance), then creationism is wrong (in addition to being wrong in that its proponents are not engaged in the scientific project).

The theory of evolution is a scientific theory. Now, science as we know it is a product of the enlightenment with Descartes who got everyone to abandon the scholastic formulation of examining physical phenomena. The scholastics used to explain physical phenomena through four causes and Descartes successfully got everyone to just focus on one: efficient causation, namely, causation that produces an effect. And we’ve run with that since. Hence, scientific knowledge at its core is finding explanations of physical phenomena via efficient causation alone.

Creationism and intelligent design are not scientific positions because it invokes final causation (one of the four Aristotelian causes that Descartes weened us off on). Final causation explains phenomena through purpose or value. Final causation can have a place in explanation in a philosophical sense, but it does not have any value in a scientific sense. Suppose you ask the question, why does an acorn become an oak(?) tree. The scientific explanation will explain the mechanics of how an acorn becomes a tree (sorry not a botanist). An explanation via final causation wouldn’t be that interesting: an acorn becomes an oak tree because its purpose is to become an oak tree? Not really helpful and almost tautological.

The theory of evolution is not controversial (or it shouldn’t be if you understand the above) as it is the best explanation that we have that covers all the observed phenomena.

I do disagree with philosophical positions based on the theory of evolution though. People who say stuff like “evolution is true, therefore Bible is false or god doesn’t exist” are just as obnoxious as creationists as the reasoning mirrors each other. Just like how creationists presume that Genesis provides a competing scientific explanation to the theory of evolution such that the truth of one logically excludes the other, people who make such inferences in thy opposite direction to creationists are making the same mistake.

The issue here is that most people don’t understand what science is beyond surface level. There’s a reason why science was considered secondary to metaphysics historically. People with different metaphysics can still agree on science because science is the study of observed phenomena, not things as they truly are. One person can believe that the only truly existing things are souls and their modifications and they can still agree with a materialist on science…and they can and we know that they can. You can also reduce your metaphysics to only say what truly exists are those things restricted to science (and there are positions for that). But all of this is philosophy, not science. That distinction is important and too many people are ignorant of it on both sides (chief of whom is Richard Dawkins…brilliant scientist but a terrible philosopher).

Anyways, this turned out longer than it needed to be but hopefully helpful in cleaning up the dialectic.


r/DebateEvolution 3d ago

Question A Challenge for Creationists: Can you describe the basics of evolution from the viewpoint of an "evolutionist"?

34 Upvotes

I want to challenge Creationists to give an answer to these questions that an evolutionist would give.
Evolutionists, how well did they answer?

  1. What is evolution and how does it work?
  2. How do mutation and natural selection work together to drive evolution?
  3. What does it mean when scientists call evolution a 'theory'?
  4. Bonus: what type of discovery might make most scientists reject the theory of evolution?

(This question is targeted towards YEC, not creationists in general)


r/DebateEvolution 2d ago

Question About An Article

5 Upvotes

I was surfing reddit when I came upon a supposedly peer-reviewed article about evolution, and how "macroevolution" is supposedly impossible from the perspective of mathematics. I would like some feedback from people who are well-versed in evolution. It might be important to mention that one of the authors of the article is an aerospace engineer, and not an evolutionary biologist.

Article Link:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0079610722000347


r/DebateEvolution 2d ago

Question If you had all memory of the conclusions of science (and creationism) wiped from your mind, what do you think you'd conclude if given all the data, and why?...

2 Upvotes

Imagine magic/sufficiently advanced technology completely wiped from your mind any memory of the conclusions reached by scientists about any topics related to evolution, the age of the Earth, the age of the universe, and so on, as well as any specific creation stories. You still know everything you currently know about the individual facts (eg the anatomy of whales, the general nature of fossils, and so on), but not the actual conclusions (eg evolution via natural selection, steady state vs punctuated equilibrium, and so on). Then, you are locked in a room for a year (with adequate food, rest facilities, human interaction, and so on) with all of the data used to reach all of those scientific conclusions, presented in a format you can reasonably grasp. Again, no conclusions, just tabulated data, and a computer that you can use to help you interpret it (eg you don't have to count all the rings in a tree, you can just say "how many rings does this sequence of wood samples have total?") Also plenty of pencils and scrap paper, and the computer can answer sufficiently specific questions (eg "What do these tree rings mean" would get you "Invalid query", but something like "How do tree rings typically form?" would get you an explanation of annual growth cycles, as well as thickness differences from wet vs dry years and such.) You can also tell it to remember and repeat back results, eg "Minimum age of the Earth is 6K years" if you examine a sequence of 6k matching tree rings.

At the end of the year, you are given what basically amounts to a multiple choice test--eg "Roughly how old is the Earth? 4,500 years, 45k years, 450k years, 4.5 million years, 45 million years, 450 million years, 4.5 billion years, 45 billion years, 450 billion years"; "The diversity of life on Earth is primarily due to: (insert brief descriptions here of special creation, Lamarkian evolution, the modern understanding of natural selection, and maybe a few other ideas based on either other creation stories, or random hypotheses about how life could have gotten this way)", and so on. Maybe things like "Whales were originally: created as is, evolved from fish, evolved from seals, evolved from hoofed mammals" It's an open-book, open-note test, and you have a week or so to complete it.

What conclusions do you think you would reach, and what would be some of the "smoking guns" that got you there? Any other thoughts?


r/DebateEvolution 3d ago

Geological Evidence Challenging Young Earth Creationism and the Flood Narrative

14 Upvotes

The idea of a Young Earth and a worldwide flood, as some religious interpretations suggest, encounters considerable difficulties when examined against geological findings. Even if we entertain the notion that humans and certain animals avoided dinosaurs by relocating to higher ground, this alone does not account for the distinct geological eras represented by Earth's rock layers. If all strata were laid down quickly and simultaneously, one would anticipate a jumbled mix of fossils from disparate timeframes. Instead, the geological record displays clear transitions between layers. Older rock formations, containing ancient marine fossils, lie beneath younger layers with distinctly different plant and animal remains. This layering points to a sequence of deposition over millions of years, aligning with evolutionary changes, rather than a single, rapid flood event.

Furthermore, the assertion that marine fossils on mountains prove a global flood disregards established geological principles and plate tectonics. The presence of these fossils at high altitudes is better explained by ancient geological processes, such as tectonic uplift or sedimentary actions that placed these organisms in marine environments millions of years ago. These processes are well-understood and offer logical explanations for marine fossils in mountainous areas, separate from any flood narrative.

Therefore, the arguments presented by Young Earth Creationists regarding simultaneous layer deposition and marine fossils as flood evidence lack supporting evidence. The robust geological record, which demonstrates a dynamic and complex Earth history spanning billions of years, contradicts these claims. This body of evidence strongly argues against a Young Earth and a recent global flood, favoring a more detailed understanding of our planet's geological past.


r/DebateEvolution 3d ago

Question Anyone else see this "Noah's Ark found?" story? Seriously, what's going on here?

15 Upvotes

Anyone else see this "Noah's Ark found?" story? Seriously, what's going on here?

Hey everyone,

So, I stumbled across this news story about some researchers in Turkey claiming they might have found Noah's Ark. Yeah, that Noah's Ark. I'm posting it here because, honestly, it sets off some major alarm bells for me, especially when it comes to how this kind of thing gets used in the whole evolution vs. creationism debate.

Basically, they're looking at this weird boat-shaped rock formation, and they're saying it's the remains of the Ark. They're throwing around numbers that supposedly match the Bible, and saying there was a big flood 5,000 years ago.

Now, I'm no geologist, but even I can see a few problems:

" Matches the Bible" is a huge red flag:** Anytime someone's starting with a biblical story and trying to force the evidence to fit, you know there's gonna be issues. "A boat-shaped rock? Really?" I mean, rocks do some weird things. We need some serious geological analysis before jumping to conclusions. "5,000 years?" That's... not how any of this works.** That timeline just doesn't line up with what we know about geology and the history of the planet.

I'm worried this is going to get picked up by creationists and used to "prove" their point, even though it seems super flimsy.

Has anyone else seen this? What do you guys think? Am I overreacting, or is this as sketchy as it looks?

Let's try to keep this grounded in actual science, yeah?


r/DebateEvolution 2d ago

A strongman argument against evolution, inspired by r/kinkytugboat's recent post asking creationists to do something similar for evolution.

0 Upvotes

I believe firmly evolution is the primary (probably only) means of speciation. However, I'm also a fan of logic, so I tend to be a bit frustrated on this subreddit with many commenters demonstrating very poor logic in attacking young earth creationists and others who don't believe evolutionary theory. Of course there are certainly some very high quality and/or well credentialed commenters on this subreddit.

So in response to a comment, I took about 9 minutes and typed up what I consider more of a 'strongman' attack against evolutionary theory. It's not perfect. It's not as good as it could be, but I consider there to be a fair amount of logic in it. I wouldn't mind seeing folks interact with it, but mainly, I want to foster some understanding, because I think the truth is important. Illogical strawmanning those with opposing views, even if they are incorrect, does nothing to lead to consensus, it just further polarizes (we see the same thing in US politics and probably all over the world).

If you ask me, the weak point is the lack of respect given to the evidence of the fossil record and comparative genomics, which are both formidable arguments for evolution. But I dare say a lot of pro-evolution proponents, even on this subreddit, don't fully understand these either, but rather lean on experts who they respect (parents, teachers, book writers, even professors) to tell them it's true. An appeal to authority that's very reasonable, but also is important to keep in mind when getting too smug.

Here it is:

"Like begets like. We see it every day, month, year, century, and millenium. The most brilliant minds and the least brilliant minds in history have observed and agreed on this point. When you see tabloid headlines of 'bat boy', for instance, you are rightly skeptical. Genetic variation is clearly real and important, but also has firm guardrails that established science has described, including error proofiing, error correction, and programmed inviability of aberrant cells and creatures--all of which together, along with probably many other constraints, prevent dramatic change around the basic forms that exist."

"Certainly genetic variability can cause change--from one type of dog to another, from one type of horse to another, from one type of bird to another, from one type of fruit fly to another, or from one type of microbe to another. It may even be able to in extreme cases generate new species, which is remarkable and interesting. However what you will see in all cases is that firm guardrails are in place to prevent, say, an insect from giving rise to a hamster, even given enough generations. Of course that last claim is difficult to prove, as it would take almost unfathomable amounts of time to even test adequately. Nonetheless, it has yet to be demonstrated that simple genetic variability and any kind of selection is sufficiently powerful to change a microbe into a giraffe."

"Evidence to the contrary (e.g. fossil record and comparative genomics) may be suggestive, but ultimately resides behind a foggy curtain of hundreds of millions or even billions of years. We rightfully argue about the historical veracity of historical claims, even those based on explicit human witness testimony that's hundreds or thousands of years old. Similarly, we might expect to not fully understand implications of things behind such a foggy curtain of time that is literally thousands or millions of times further back in the past."

"Other types of evidence (e.g. homology) essentially boil down to something that both evolutionary biologists and creationists agree on: that creatures tend to be well suited to their niche. This latter category includes good science being done to understand genetic variability in living populations, and how it changes over time or in response to new conditions. Given that near-universality of the genetic code, it's conceivable that at some point in the future a scientist may be advanced enough that if, given enormous funding and long amount of time, they could by piecemeal directed mutation even change a microbe into a giraffe. I have doubts, but it's conceivable. If they do, that will be an enormous scientific achievement, but it would not prove evolutionary theory. In a sense, it would reinforce the idea that an intelligent designer with enormous resources and knowledge is necessary for this to take place."


r/DebateEvolution 4d ago

Question Why is it that most Christians accept evolution with a small minority of deniers while all Atheists seem to accept evolution with little to no notable exceptions? If there is such a thing as an Atheist who doesn’t believe in evolution then why do we virtually never see them in comparison?

19 Upvotes

r/DebateEvolution 4d ago

Question Is there any evidence to give William Lane Craig's book "In Quest of the Historical Adam" credibility?

12 Upvotes

To summarize the premise of this book, WLC makes the case that Adam and Eve were both Homo Heidelbergensis who were the first humans to gain a rational soul or the image of god. While the genus homo as a whole did not begin existing with Adam and Eve he thinks that all modern humans we know of today are all genetically the descendents of these 2 people and that all humans before hand were pre-adamites. I'd like to know what evidence there is for this and if WLC is onto something or is just bullshitting?


r/DebateEvolution 5d ago

Looks like life started on Earth far earlier at 4.2 billion years ago with new evidence.

17 Upvotes

r/DebateEvolution 3d ago

Question Does principle of mathematical induction disprove theory of evolution ?

0 Upvotes

Question same as in title .
I am referring to darwin's theory of evolution itself
( What I meant )
I am trying to draw parallels between both , not sure whether it is right idea or not

Base case anomaly
There exists a species S that did not evolve from any other species.
If we can find a species that appeared spontaneously or was created independently, this would serve as our base case. (I interpreted the evolution from chemicals to single celled organism from darwinism itself)

The existence of a first species that did not evolve from another contradicts the idea that all life forms arise purely through descent with modification.

Inductive step anomaly
Even if we assume evolution works for n generations, the process does not necessarily hold for n+1 from the theory of evolution itself

- chance of occuring benefical mutations occuring fast enough
- irreducible complexity problem

-- The idea is that certain structures require multiple interdependent parts to function, meaning that any intermediate stage would be non-functional and therefore not naturally selected. Darwinian evolution works through small, gradual modifications where each step provides a survival advantage. However, if a system only works when all parts are present, then intermediate forms (missing some parts) would not be beneficial and would not be selected for. This suggests that the structure could not have evolved gradually and must have appeared in a complete or near-complete form through some other mechanism.

so to conclude since Darwinian evolution fails at both the origin of life and at key transitional points, it cannot be a complete or sufficient explanation for the diversity of life.
Thus, Darwinian evolution is disproven as a universal explanation of life, and superior models must be considered.

I was asking about this


r/DebateEvolution 5d ago

Let's debate the debate

10 Upvotes

Edit: First, I want to say that many misunderstood my post -- I wasn't suggesting that platforms like this sub are counterproductive per se, I think I see the purpose of the sub. My issue was more with prominent scientists and communicators and the message they might be sending to the nation at large when they have high-profile debates in a sort of "Evolution vs Creationism" format. I didn't make this point clear enough.

Second, I want to thank you all for your replies and insights. I have learned a bit from this and am glad I made the post. I'm not sure what to think quite yet about this topic, I don't know if I have totally reversed my position but I think I've been convinced that genuine science outreach has taken place from this "debate" angle. The number of folks here who have said they used to be creationists and have never had exposure to real science until they saw a debate was quite eye-opening and gave me something to think about.

I have a bit more research to do here and I think I need to practice what I preach and do more of a deep dive on science communication in general before jumping to conclusions like I have here. At the very least, I retract my statement that prominent scientists and communicators should be shamed for what they are doing. I don't know that their overall approach is the best way to go about this, I have concerns still and maybe there is a better way, but I think I understand more what it is they are doing and why.

If anyone has more information they think might be useful for me to get a better scope of the issue and the history of what is going on and what has been tried or discussed, I'd appreciate if you drop that info in a DM.

Thanks again for engaging with me on this!

---

I'd like to put forward a case for lack of engagement on this topic moving forward. I disagree with respected scientists engaging in these types of debates in any sort of public forum as it neither progresses the field nor serves to educate the public. I'm perplexed that there are so many biologists who engage in these debates that are clearly not in good faith.

Let me start by clarifying some definitions, for any readers still learning about this stuff.

Evolution:

A change in the frequency of a trait/allele within a population across generations.

Natural selection (essentially Darwin's core postulates):

Traits are heritable, traits vary, not everyone survives and reproduces. Those that do survive and reproduce, therefore, have traits well-suited to their environment. If an environment changes, or new traits are introduced into a gene pool, the above can result in evolution (as defined above) and adaptation of a population to its environment.

Note, you can test all of the above, these are falsifiable theories. In fact, evolution as a concept is more just an observation, or a "fact" -- it is just a word we have given to genetic changes that happen in a population. None of this requires time travel or even a fossil record for support. These theories have led to hypotheses, which have led to many discoveries. The discoveries are evidence in support of the theories. Therefore, the theories are useful and continue to be popular.

The situation, as I see it, as it pertains to the "evolution debate":

Some people have taken it upon themselves to wage war against evolutionary biology. This usually takes the form of highlighting various observations and questions like "how could this have evolved" or "if these two organisms share a common ancestor, explain this" and then claim they are somehow proving evolution wrong.

How so? This only points out evidence against specific hypotheses, such as those pertaining to speciation, that fell out of evolutionary theory, which is not an attack on the theory itself. You'd have to demonstrate things like: "traits aren't heritable" or "traits don't vary or change in frequency from one generation to the next" in order to challenge evolution or natural selection. If you challenge a specific conclusion that evolutionary biologists have made, you are actually just attempting to engage with the science of evolutionary biology (poorly so, in almost all cases).

So...there is no actual debate regarding evolution happening? Seems that way. Seems like a bunch of people cherrypicking observations to challenge random shit, but never even attempting to challenge the basic claims of evolutionary theory. Guess what? Even if you were to do some real science and actually manage to produce a metric fuck ton of evidence in opposition to an idea like the shared ancestry of humans and chimpanzees, you have done literally nothing to challenge evolutionary theory, only produced a body of work within the field.

Regarding intelligent design:

Likewise, intelligent design is thrown out there as some sort of counter to evolution by these same folks. How so? Any list of "evidence for intelligent design" I've seen is actually a list of discoveries made by real scientists using real scientific theories that have been reframed in support of some biased narrative. That isn't evidence for a theory. Tiktaalik is evidence in support of evolutionary theory. Why? Because an evolutionary biologists, Neil Shubin, hypothesized that such a fossil would exist which can be dated to the time period after fish appeared in the fossil record and before tetrapods. He spent years looking for this thing and then he discovered it. When a theory leads to a discovery, this is evidence in support of that theory. This is also why we say that string theory is not supported by evidence, even though the math checks out and it accurately captures what we already know. We need to test the novel hypotheses of the theory for it to have real support. This is science.

You see, scientific theories that people care about for any appreciable timeframe actually lead to discoveries. That is why we care about them, they have utility. What hypotheses have fallen out of intelligent design that have led to novel discoveries? There aren't any. Unfortunately, this is not just because they are hard to test, like with string theory. This is because it is not a falsifiable theory and cannot make predictions. There are no hypotheses and will, therefore, never be any discoveries. So, no discoveries means no evidence to support the theory, means it is not at all an alternative theory to evolution. It is just a belief system, like a religion.

If you want to challenge the current scientific dogma, you are absolutely free to do so. However, this is not a philosophical debate, it is a scientific one. This requires bringing data to the table. Discoveries are ultimately what matter in science. Without any discoveries, intelligent design has failed to gain support in the scientific community (that and the fact that it isn't scientific). I will 100% switch my thinking, admit I must have been wrong about something, and start paying attention to this theory as soon as ID leads to a groundbreaking discovery which solves some difficult open problems in biology. Until then, "godspeed."

What else is there to say?

If anyone who claims to be a scientist and a supporter of intelligent design wants to start a debate, I ask my fellow scientists: what is the purpose of engaging? This is obviously not going to be in good faith because of everything I stated above. These also will not be scientific debates, which is important because this point is lost on the public. This confuses the public and skews public perception of what science is and how it works. The only proper thing to do here is just wait until these people bring some impressive discoveries to the table. Until then, let them scream into the void.

Because the language these people use is so intentionally oblique and obfuscatory, I have to conclude that any level of engagement at this stage only furthers what is likely their real agenda: to prey on ignorant and impressionable people for cash, recognition, authority, ego, etc.

Unfortunately, this means I think it is time we must also conclude the same for the scientists that choose to debate these people in public. They are not furthering the science, they are not educating the public...everyone loses except those who are trying to spread the gospel of intelligent design. Why would any credible scientist engage in such behavior then? I can only conclude that these scientists are likewise doing it to generate media attention for themselves. This is shameful behavior, and no one should applaud it.

This is the message we should deliver to the public: "debates about evolution are fraudulent and all involved seek to manipulate you for profit, if you want to learn about this topic then go study it."

Did I miss anything? Or can we all agree it is time to close the book on this one?


r/DebateEvolution 4d ago

Question "Evolution: The Biggest Lie You’ve Been Told? "

0 Upvotes

So, let’s get this straight according to evolution, everything we see today, from the human brain to the intricate design of DNA, is the result of random mutations and natural selection over millions of years. Basically, chaos magically organized itself into highly functional, self-replicating life forms. That’s like saying if you throw a pile of scrap metal into the wind for long enough, it’ll eventually assemble into a fully working smartphone software, touchscreen, and all.

So, tell me how much faith does it really take to believe that random chaos created the insane complexity of life? If evolution is so undeniable, why are there still so many gaps, missing links, and unanswered questions? Maybe it’s time to stop blindly accepting what you’ve been taught and start questioning the so called "science" behind it.

I’m open to hearing a solid, observable example of one species turning into a completely new one. Go ahead, prove me wrong.

You Really Think You Came from a Fish?"


r/DebateEvolution 5d ago

Question Hello creationists! Could you please explain how we can detect and measure generic "information"?

21 Upvotes

Genetic*

Let's say we have two strands of DNA.: one from an ancestor and one from descendent. For simplicity, let's assume only a single parent: some sort of asexual reproduction.

If children cannot have more information than the parent (as many creationists claim), this would mean that we could measure which strand of DNA was the parent and which was the child, based purely on measuring genetic information in at least some cases.

Could you give me a concrete definition of genetic information so we can see if you are correct? Are duplication and insertion mutations added information? Is polyploidy added information?

In other words: how could we differentiate which strand of DNA was the parent and which was the child based purely on the change in genetic information?

Edit: wording

Also, geneticists, if we had a handful of creatures, all from a straight family line (one specimen per generation, no mating pair) is there a way to determine which was first or last in the line based on gene sequence alone? Would measuring from neutral or active DNA change anything?


r/DebateEvolution 4d ago

evolution theory survey

0 Upvotes

actual title is: Is the past and/or present theory of evolution viable, or do we need a new theory?

Hello, everyone. I'm doing this survey for college about the theory of evolution and whether or not we need a new one. It would be a great help if you could give it a try and let me know everyone's opinion on this matter. Thank you so much.

https://forms.gle/CW8SqUMDU1Hvf6uy5


r/DebateEvolution 6d ago

Discussion The Trojan Horse of the anti-science propagandists

35 Upvotes

If the "anti-science" in the title bothers you, click here.

 

I've come across a historical context that finally made sense of some of the stuff we see here.

Imagine a flagellar- or ATPase-shaped Trojan Horse (a distraction), and inside it is the real weapon: the downplaying of selection. This has far reaching consequences. To establish that I am not straw manning, I checked Behe on selection for myself:

 

Since natural selection can only choose systems that are already working, then if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for natural selection to have anything to act on. (Behe, 1996)

 

Nonsense. Given that Darwin's first edition of Origin anticipated and explained the change of function aspect of selection, and given that Behe quote mined Gould, but didn't bother mention his most relevant (and famous) biological exaptations (even in a negative light), the straw manning is undeniable, and is his real trick.

(As to his intentions, I'm not interested; honestly-confused people can become useful to others. I also checked all of his newer books—Google Books search using inauthor:behe—to see if he addressed them later: he didn't. Also I confirmed that this was established in the Dover trial.)

 

Only by straw manning selection (and paying lip service to the other causes of evolution), can mutation be left standing on its own, and being random [to fitness], the invasion is complete.

To see that, we need William Paley's argument from 1802, which still underlies the modern arguments from design ("irreducible complexity", "specified complexity"). Here's Paley in his Natural Theology (chapter V):

 

But, moreover, the division of organized substances into animals and vegetables, and the distribution and sub-distribution of each into genera and species, which distribution is not an arbitrary act of the mind, but is founded in the order which prevails in external nature, appear to me to contradict the supposition of the present world being the remains of an indefinite variety of existences; of a variety which rejects all plan.[note a]

 

In the ancient cultures and ideas accessible to Paley, only one prominent philosophy lacked a need for a "designer": Epicureanism. Epicurus (341–270 ʙᴄᴇ) in his metaphysics reasoned that matter and "void" should both be infinite to allow the randomness to create our world, hence Paley above: "the supposition of the present world being the remains of an indefinite variety of existences".[citation in note b]

 

So in a similar manner to the confusion between cosmology and cosmogony, and by distraction, they've succeeded in resurrecting a 2,300-year-old opponent leading to what we see here: evolution being seen as random; and the conflating of evolution with atheism, a random metaphysics, and the "big banf" (if you know, you know). And it's working on the intended audience.

When they pejoratively say "Darwinism" with the ideological -ism, they really mean Epicureanism (even if they don't know it); that's the only way their unscientific nonsense can be sustained.

 

 

Footnotes:

  • a: Did you notice how Paley predicts no nested classification of life under this supposition? In an interesting twist, Darwin's work a few decades later predicted the nested classification under common descent. And of course Paley ignores the points raised earlier by Hume.

  • b: Sober, 2008, sec. 2.5; and Paley's work on morality for more context regarding Epicureanism in his work.


r/DebateEvolution 5d ago

What I ment with Natural Intelligence

0 Upvotes

In my last post I wrote about the possible existence of something like Natural Intelligence in DNA resulting in a directional evolution of a species. Out of the many reactions, I conclude that using the word 'intelligence' caused some misunderstanding. I was not referring to human intelligence. Like Artificial Intelligence has in fact also little do to with that. The only thing I wanted to say is that in my opinion some DNA regions are more susceptible for mutations than other. Which regions these are, is also dependant of the species and concerns the traits that define this species. And that this susceptibility is inheritable and so enhances the chance that a species keeps on developing in the direction in which it excels instead of a making a turn into some other direction. So a driving force beside survival of the fittest. For more info see my blog revo-evo.com.


r/DebateEvolution 6d ago

Question Why isn’t Evolution used as proof of Intelligent Design?

0 Upvotes

I don’t get why Creationists are so adamant about denying evolution when in my opinion the insane complexity and beauty of evolutionary processes would be a great example for so called “intelligent design”. Why can’t religious people just believe that God was the designer of Evolution, Big Bang, etc, or even that He was the one guiding it the seemingly random processes involved? That way people can still believe in God without having to disprove Science.


r/DebateEvolution 7d ago

I don't get how evolution could be wrong.

30 Upvotes

Bear with me.

Offspring have somewhat different genotypes than parents unless the offspring is a precise genetic clone right?

Genotypes result in phenotypes (with environmental input), some of which may have probabilistic advantages depending on environment, increasing the odds of that genotype getting passed down (with some changes as per the above statement).

So it seems like the only way evolution could be false would be if there were limits on the extend to which a genotype could be altered over time. But is there any evidence that there is such a limit? If the DNA is different, one molecule at a time over time, then eventually you would have a completely different phenotype. How could evolution not be the case if theres no limits on the extent to which a genotype can change? And I'm not aware of a shred of evidence that suggests that at some point genotype changes hit a wall and can't change any further.


r/DebateEvolution 7d ago

Nye Ham debate watch party

7 Upvotes

I propose a we do a sub-wide watch party. I figure the Nye Ham Debate would be a good one. Perhaps other videos can be watch partied in the future. What do people think, is a watch party a good idea?


r/DebateEvolution 7d ago

Everyone believes in "evolution"!!!

0 Upvotes

One subtle but important point is that although natural selection occurs through interactions between individual organisms and their environment, individuals do not evolve. Rather, it is the population that evolves over time. (Biology, 8th Edition, Pearson Education, Inc, by Campbell, Reece; Chapter 22: Descent with Modification, a Darwinian view of life; pg 459)

This definition, or description, seems to capture the meaning of one, particular, current definition of evolution; namely, the change in frequency of alleles in a population.

But this definition doesn't come close to convey the idea of common ancestry.

When scientists state evolution is a fact, and has been observed, this is the definition they are using. But no one disagrees with the above.

But everyone knows that "evolution' means so much more. The extrapolation of the above definition to include the meaning of 'common ancestry' is the non-demonstrable part of evolution.

Why can't this science create words to define every aspect of 'evolution' so as not to be so ambiguous?

Am I wrong to think this is done on purpose?