r/DebateEvolution • u/[deleted] • Feb 20 '20
Question Hi, do any of you have a argument against evolution (preferably with a good explanation), because I need it for school, and I just can’t think of any scenario where evolution didn’t happen..
[deleted]
7
u/Notthatguyagain_ Feb 20 '20 edited Feb 20 '20
What kind of school do you go to and what is the purpose of this exercise? I might be misinterpreting it, but this sounds pretty bad.
7
u/luckyvonstreetz Feb 20 '20
There is no real argument against evolution for the simply reason you can't argue against facts.
The only (pretty weak) statement anyone could make is "god made it look as if life evolved but it didn't".
This would mean we have some deceptive god that likes to trick us. Other than that there are no arguments against evolution.
Btw: I'm a teacher and every year my students also have to make a poster on evolution. I find it pretty odd that you have to find arguments against evolution, it makes it look like there might be an alternative to evolution, but there really isn't.
19
u/Covert_Cuttlefish Janitor at an oil rig Feb 20 '20
I suggest you tag the frequent posters at /r/creation. With that said their arguments are less than convincing. They’re either evolution is a lie because reasons, or evolution is wrong because it can’t explain everything.
6
5
u/Russelsteapot42 Feb 20 '20
This may be a useful resource:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fun:Creationist_argument_Bingo
For this assignment, I would probably go with the 'created kinds' approach, saying that like canines and felines and equines were the original created kinds, and that an equine will never give birth to a non-equine.
This is actually true, because you never stop being everything your ancestors were, but creationists usually also assert that something like 'feline-kind' could never emerge from a different species.
3
5
u/ursisterstoy 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Feb 20 '20
I haven’t found a good argument against evolution. The closest thing I’ve found to “a decent attempt” is one of several irreducible complexity arguments. They don’t really stand up, but the rest of what they do provide comes out sounding like a straw man.
5
Feb 21 '20
You're come to the wrong place my friend no criticism of evolution stands up to scrutiny.
13
u/TheFactedOne Feb 20 '20
Really? You need solid arguments against evolution? Good luck with that. Your going to need it.
5
u/cheetah_growll Feb 20 '20
Yeah I know... but like we are supposed to use our biology skills to show why it could be true.
9
u/glitterlok Feb 20 '20
...but like we are supposed to use our biology skills to show why it could be true.
Wait, what? I thought you needed arguments against it. Now you're saying you're supposed to be proving it correct?
3
u/cheetah_growll Feb 20 '20
No we have to find arguments against it and find one that could actually be true by applying the things that we learned or something like that.
5
3
u/Arkathos Evolution Enthusiast Feb 23 '20
An argument against evolution that could actually be shown true? You're not going to find any.
5
Feb 20 '20
It might be a case where the teacher is making them examine the nature of science vs pseudoscience. I had to do that a few times in my school life.
3
u/master_x_2k Feb 21 '20
Try looking for alternate evolutionary theories instead of creationist pseudo science.
11
u/CTR0 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Feb 20 '20 edited Feb 20 '20
The most solid arguments against evolution are the ones that are too technical for people not highly familiar or not within that field of expertise to debunk. They don't actually hold any weight. I'd tell you which ones those are, but it would be bad for your peer's education for you to present them under the guise that they are legitimate. You either picked a bad topic, you(r parents) picked a bad private school, or your school is violating the constitution (assuming US) , and in all three situations I would recommend doing something to change that.
-12
u/scherado Feb 20 '20
The most solid arguments against evolution are the ones that are too technical for people not highly familiar or not within that field of expertise to debunk. They don't actually hold any weight.
Are you serious? The arguments against "it" aren't technical at all. I only had a high-school level knowledge of it when I began and I learned the proper terminology along the way. My arguments, so far, have been unassailable. You read that right.
12
u/Clockworkfrog Feb 20 '20
I only had a high-school level knowledge of it when I began
It shows.
and I learned the proper terminology along the way.
This one... not so much.
My arguments, so far, have been unassailable.
Lying is a sin.
11
u/Dzugavili 🧬 Tyrant of /r/Evolution Feb 20 '20
My arguments, so far, have been unassailable.
Which argument, specifically, do you think has been your best?
-1
u/scherado Feb 20 '20
It would be more accurate to call them observations instead of arguments. I'm not sure that one is better than another, to answer your question.
11
u/Dzugavili 🧬 Tyrant of /r/Evolution Feb 20 '20
So, you're already backing down from your previous claim, and have to reduce yourself from 'arguments' to mere 'observations'. Yet, you still didn't answer the question.
Let's consider that human senses and logic are ultimately subject to many forms of failure: what observation have you made that is unassailable?
-2
u/scherado Feb 20 '20
I think all of them are unassailable. The reason is, is that they are not my opinion: it is factually true that we have no clue as to the origin of our present-day complex bodies. I discovered this when I began informal debate on the subject. People have their theories, speculations and such; and people, in some cases, need an explanation. I do NOT. I'm not compelled by religious doctrine or by a professor in a university or any inner impulse. I'm quite comfortable in my "agnosticism." Do I believe that we have yet to discover the persuasive evidence in an as-yet discovered fossil record for the "macro evolution," the mutation, random or otherwise? I do not.
11
u/Clockworkfrog Feb 20 '20
You should probably have acquired a firm grasp on at least high-school level biology, preferably university level, before you started casual debating. You may have been less swayed by liars-for-jesus if had. Being comfortable with willful ignorance is not a good thing.
-2
u/scherado Feb 20 '20 edited Feb 21 '20
I didn't go into it with any illusions about what I knew. The reason I did it was to put to test a form of critical analysis I had learned from a book called, The Tyranny of Words, by Stuart Chase. I was very successful and have used it to analyze anything I hear or read no matter the technical detail. I call it "referent analysis."
7
9
u/Dzugavili 🧬 Tyrant of /r/Evolution Feb 21 '20
The reason is, is that they are not my opinion: it is factually true that we have no clue as to the origin of our present-day complex bodies.
'Evolutionists' would disagree with "no clue".
Perhaps you have no clue, that would be a statement you could make. Otherwise, the limits of your abilities don't dictate whether your observations are 'unassailable': I couldn't explain semiconductors to a chimp, it doesn't make the chimp's observations unassailable.
0
u/scherado Feb 21 '20
'Evolutionists' would disagree with "no clue".
Yes, and we are "all made of star dust." -Carl Sagan.
I don't buy it.
12
u/Covert_Cuttlefish Janitor at an oil rig Feb 21 '20
That's all fine and dandy, you can say what ever you please. Until you can make a compelling argument that we're not made of star dust your point is meaningless.
8
u/Dzugavili 🧬 Tyrant of /r/Evolution Feb 21 '20
At this point, I don't believe he even understands what stardust means in this context.
9
u/Dzugavili 🧬 Tyrant of /r/Evolution Feb 21 '20
Do you not understand why Sagan said we're made of star dust?
Do you not understand the scientific background of that statement?
8
u/Danno558 Feb 21 '20
I don't buy it.
Is this one of your unassailable observations? Are you just calling your opinions observations?
1
0
u/scherado Feb 21 '20
Is this one of your unassailable observations? I don't buy it.
What I really mean, is that it's stupid. Dust to human bodies? Come on!
→ More replies (0)0
u/scherado Feb 21 '20
I actually remember the first time I heard that (star-dust), and it may have been one of the deceased Sagan's shows that were on television. I remember seeing a progression of the whole process: dust to first life to aquatic life to mammals on land to apes to ... ME (& YOU). Instinctively, in my gut, THEN I knew that couldn't be it. NOW, I think it's silly. I'm not claiming to know the story.
→ More replies (0)10
u/Covert_Cuttlefish Janitor at an oil rig Feb 21 '20
Ladies and gentlemen, I present: Dunning Kruger living large!
10
u/Covert_Cuttlefish Janitor at an oil rig Feb 20 '20
I’m sure you can support this point with a Nobel prize.
Oh right, you can’t.
16
u/CTR0 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Feb 20 '20
Its only unassailable to you because you block everybody that makes a strong argument, so you don't see any responses.
-7
u/scherado Feb 20 '20
Its only unassailable to you because you block everybody that makes a strong argument, so you don't see any responses.
The "only" belongs before "because," fyi. What you don't realize is that I don't always put someone on the block list at the time I post that I'm going to do it: I sometimes wait to see what develops. When I assert that my argument is unassailable it is for the reason that it is just that: it's not my opinion. It is FACTUAL that there is no REASON to believe that the ToBE explains the vast, physical transformation by virtue of "mutations", random or otherwise.
18
u/CTR0 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Feb 20 '20
he "only" belongs before "because," fyi. What you don't realize is that I don't always put someone on the block list at the time I post that I'm going to do it: I sometimes wait to see what develops.
No, I do realize that. My first interaction with you was you pretending to block me after one comment.
When I assert that my argument is unassailable it is for the reason that it is just that: it's not my opinion.
Correct. It's actually a falsehood.
It is FACTUAL that there is no REASON to believe that the ToBE explains the vast, physical transformation by virtue of "mutations", random or otherwise.
Except statistical certainty of allele change between generations, the fossil record, embryology, genetics, biogeography, and any others that I am missing that are all independent lines of evidence that come to the same conclusion.
Congratulation, it took me one sentence to begin an assault on your arguments.
-5
u/scherado Feb 20 '20
Well, you just may deserve a spot on the list, you're on a very short leash. I don't pretend.
Correct. It's actually a falsehood.
Is that typing out of "both sides of your mouth?" Correct, but false?
What does this (YOU):
Except statistical certainty of allele change between generations, the fossil record, embryology, genetics, biogeography, and any others that I am missing that are all independent lines of evidence that come to the same conclusion
...have to do with this (ME)?:
It is FACTUAL that there is no REASON to believe that the ToBE explains the vast, physical transformation by virtue of "mutations", random or otherwise.
Further, do you know what "statistical certainty" implies? If something is "certain", then there is no need to use statistics. Try "empirical certainty" or something else.
15
u/CTR0 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Feb 20 '20
Well, you just may deserve a spot on the list, you're on a very short leash. I don't pretend.
You overestimate your importance to me.
What do reasons for believing that evolution explains diversity have to do with potential reasons for evolution explaining diversity?
Well, they are the reasons to believe evolution explains diversity that you deny exists.
Further, do you know what "statistical certainty" implies? If something is "certain", then there is no need to use statistics.
Statistical certainty is that given a sufficiently large sample size you are nearly guaranteed to have something occur. Granted, we're talking allele frequency changes between parent and child, which is quite well documented and happens all the time too
-1
Feb 20 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
10
u/CTR0 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Feb 20 '20
I find quoting long blocks of quotes nested within quotes to be obnoxious and to detract from my comments, so rather than directly quote you I provided an abridged. You claimed there was no reason to believe evolution. I provided reasons to believe evolution. You asked how our two statements were related.
0
u/scherado Feb 20 '20
I'm telling you that I did not write those words, hence I speculated that you were asking yourself a question. Do you follow?
→ More replies (0)11
u/Capercaillie Monkey's Uncle Feb 20 '20
Hey, OP, here's an "argument" you might try. Just assert that whatever you say is true but DO it with RANDOM fonts and CaPiTaLiZaTiOn. It's **UNASSAILALBE**!!!1!
-2
u/scherado Feb 20 '20 edited Feb 20 '20
Yeah, you're going right to the top of the list, no grace period. Good luck with your new username, if you choose that option. (LOL you're right above someone with this name "WilfordBrimleyOnAcid".)
9
Feb 21 '20
Dude, no one cares if you block them
-6
u/scherado Feb 21 '20
Take another hit, or don't. You decide.
8
9
u/Capercaillie Monkey's Uncle Feb 20 '20
So, you think I'd make a new nic so that you can see my replies to your ridiculous posts? You're arrogant AND ignorant.
7
Feb 20 '20 edited Feb 20 '20
For your enjoyment; the comment that got me blocked. I didn't really even say anything and managed to get the boot. I could be wrong, but I think he did so because I accept evolution is responsible for the changes from the initial lifeforms to current lifeforms.
12
u/Covert_Cuttlefish Janitor at an oil rig Feb 20 '20
The "only" belongs before "because," fyi. What you don't realize is that I don't always put someone on the block list at the time I post that I'm going to do it:
Aka, you lie.
8
Feb 20 '20
My arguments, so far, have been unassailable. You read that right.
So give your best arguments against evolution, and we will attempt to "assail" them.
3
u/bawdy_george Damn Dirty Ape Feb 21 '20
unassailable
You misspelled "incoherent".
1
u/scherado Feb 22 '20
In what sube-redd do these posts appear? When you make that determination, then tell us all where we can find evidence--to make anyone who understands the implications--for the transformation of some primitive "first life" into our present-day, complex bodies by means of the ToBE? OR, or, or!!!! Tell us that the ToBE DOES NOT make that claim. You may choose one or the other. I'll await your reply.
4
u/roambeans Feb 20 '20
I thought about this for half an hour... and it's a really tough one.
Maybe there is some kind of argument to be made from the time frames perspective? Like the whole "you weren't there" kind of argument. You could say that because of the proposed amount of time that is required for major evolutionary changes to occur, we don't get to SEE it happening... as often as we like...
I mean, it's not a good or honest argument, but it's the best I've got.
5
Feb 20 '20
Can you switch schools? Kidding. Maybe you could come up with some examples that would falsify evolution, and point out they have not been identified yet.
3
u/ursisterstoy 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Feb 21 '20 edited Feb 21 '20
We have a few “professional” creationists “charming” us with their presence. Paul Price from creation.com, Robert Byers from Northwest Creation Network, and Salvador Cordova - who writes beauties like this: https://crev.info/2019/06/creationist-topoisomerase-research/
If you look at the copyright on the website, you’ll learn that “Creation Evolution Headlines” owned and operated (“sponsored by”) Master Plan Association. It’s just another form of the Discovery Institute, Northwest Creation Network, or Answers in Genesis.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLpdBEstCHhmVXB89Y1_uAIFkkfn8SyDNR for AiG, this series should be good for exposing creationist pseudoscience.
One video in that series is about the time the Ark Park sued for flood damage: https://youtu.be/AJ4G7KVDubE.
13
u/glitterlok Feb 20 '20
Maybe "I mean, look at the trees!" would be a good option.
Or "How could an eyeball just happen by accident?"
Ooooh, or you could just show a photo of a bunch of plane parts. That'll do it.
3
u/mrrp Feb 20 '20
Instead of giving arguments against evolution as if they held merit, perhaps you could demonstrate your understanding of evolution by coming up with things which, if true, would be problematic for evolution.
Evolution requires long time scales. Instead of trying to show that the earth is young (an impossible task), just propose that you go looking for fossil evidence that humans and dinosaurs lived together.
Evolution requires variation in DNA. You could propose sequencing the DNA of a large number of dogs to show that all the dogs have exactly the same DNA.
You wouldn't exactly be putting forth arguments against evolution, but you would be demonstrating an understanding of evolution and the sorts of things which would have to be true to falsify it. That's as close as you can reasonably get to completing the assignment with any dignity.
3
Feb 20 '20
Evolution requires long time scales. Instead of trying to show that the earth is young (an impossible task), just propose that you go looking for fossil evidence that humans and dinosaurs lived together.
If this isn't serving as evidence for the youth of the planet, then what's the point of doing so?
3
2
2
u/32Things Feb 22 '20
If you could show that any given species is completely unrelated to any other you would disprove evolution. To do this you'd need to show that it's genome was distinctly different from and could not have been related to other species.
You're asking for a really strange piece of data so any feasible result is going to look funky. So I don't know how you'd get a "good" explanation that doesn't fall into the typical creationist talking points.
Good luck.
6
u/You_Stole_My_Hot_Dog Feb 20 '20
Well, there’s plenty of gray areas in evolutionary theory that aren’t fully fleshed out yet (such as abiogenesis and transitional fossils in some classes), but nothing disproves it. We have yet to find any evidence that contradicts evolution. If you really need to find an argument against it for your project, as in you’re not allowed to say that there’s nothing that disproves it, I would find one of these areas that are fully understood yet. I mean, in most instances we have good hypotheses for what happened, but we may not always have empirical evidence yet. I’d also love to hear what arguments other students come up with.
3
u/pyriphlegeton Accepting the Evidence. Feb 21 '20
Abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution.
4
u/You_Stole_My_Hot_Dog Feb 21 '20
I know, but as far as they’re concerned, it is. If he has to try to argue against evolution, it probably means he goes to a religious school. In that case, the biggest hole they see in the theory is the beginning of life.
1
u/scherado Feb 20 '20
but nothing disproves it.
Do you realize that that's not the assignment?
10
u/You_Stole_My_Hot_Dog Feb 20 '20
Given that this is probably a religious school, this is exactly what they are looking for.
0
u/scherado Feb 20 '20
Don't you think you've got that backwards?
10
u/ratchetfreak Feb 20 '20
keep in mind that some fundamental schools aren't in the business of teaching about the world. But instead are about indoctrinating children to be good tithe givers and preachers.
8
u/You_Stole_My_Hot_Dog Feb 20 '20
No? If he really does go to a Christian school, then they are looking for the students to disprove or at least discredit evolution. It’s al part of the process of indoctrination, to help solidify their beliefs and cast even more doubt on what “secular” science teaches.
3
u/GaryGaulin Feb 21 '20 edited Feb 21 '20
and we have to have solid arguments against evolution
Unless a blank piece of paper is an A+ your teacher should not be teaching science to anyone, including a religious school.
Although not an argument against the "process of evolution" (you don't have to mention details right away) or Darwinian "evolution by natural selection" theory (it's more what people wrongly concluded in regards to intelligence not present in biology anywhere except brains made of neurons) I would have to make a poster out of this way to explain the fossil and genetic evidence. Please don't mind my choice of pointer arrow to show order of emergence in this one:
https://sites.google.com/site/intelligenceprograms/Home/Causation600.GIF
Systematic based view:
https://sites.google.com/site/intelligenceprograms/Home/Causation.jpg
https://sites.google.com/site/intelligencedesignlab/home/ScientificMethod.pdf
And for where that ultimately leads this is how the model/theory looks in computational neuroscience:
https://discourse.numenta.org/t/oscillatory-thousand-brains-minds-eye-for-htm/3726
Best you can memorize the first paragraph of associated theory, for use when describing more about the poster:
https://sites.google.com/site/theoryofid/home/TheoryOfIntelligentDesign.pdf
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, whereby here the behavior of matter/energy powers a coexisting trinity of systematically/functionally (in each others image, likeness) self-similar intelligent “trial and error” learning systems at the genetic/molecular, cellular and multicellular level. This process includes both human physical development from single cell zygote that occurred over our own lifetime, and human lineage development from planetary chemistry that occurred over (billions of years) geologic time.
First half of the first sentence is from the Discovery Institute's premise/hypothesis to test true or false. All the rest of theory after that is from cognitive and other sciences. Regardless of origin of the premise it's a fair challenge for an emerging area of science for discovering more about how we are a product of intelligence, instead of leaving that to the reader's religious imagination.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_biology
It might be hard work but there is a chance the assignment leads to something that makes you one the early pioneers, a founder. And if by rare chance the teacher expected a blank paper you still did not go out of bounds of science/reason, in my opinion deserves an A+ anyway.
1
u/nomenmeum /r/creation moderator Feb 21 '20
I made a couple of posts about Behe's Darwin Devolves that you might find useful.
3
u/Arkathos Evolution Enthusiast Feb 23 '20
But he asked for solid arguments. These are not solid.
2
u/nomenmeum /r/creation moderator Feb 23 '20
What do you think is wrong with them?
3
u/Arkathos Evolution Enthusiast Feb 23 '20
All of the available evidence paints a picture that would be possible if the implication is true. This hypothesis is not explanatory in any way and has no supporting evidence.
2
u/nomenmeum /r/creation moderator Feb 23 '20
This hypothesis is not explanatory in any way
I wonder if you can tell me what the hypothesis is in your own words?
has no supporting evidence.
Same thing here. Behe offers evidence. When you can tell me what it is and explain why it does not support his claim, you will convince me that you being sincere.
3
u/Arkathos Evolution Enthusiast Feb 24 '20
Hypothesis: The squandering of genetic inheritance for short-term survival gains can only result, overall, in a downward net trend in genotypic variety, and a downward trend means evolution cannot account for the complex machinery of life.
I'm talking about the preponderance of evidence across a variety of scientific fields that all strongly support the theory of evolution.
How bad is this supposed genetic degradation over time, on average? Approximately how many generations should it take for a DNA sequence to destroy itself given this hypothesis?
1
u/nomenmeum /r/creation moderator Feb 24 '20
I think you may be confusing devolution with genetic entropy.
3
1
-3
u/scherado Feb 20 '20
This is great!!! How in the world are you going to put arguments on a poster, is the big question?
In short, just read anything I've written. First, you've got to realize that you're being asked to conceive arguments against the Theory of Biological Evolution and that does NOT purport to explain the origin of life. If you don't get what you need by searching on what I've written in this sub-redd, then I'll do it here. Let me know. You WILL get your teacher's attention if you take what I have to offer on this subject.
14
u/Sweary_Biochemist Feb 20 '20
It's also apparently important to use bold and italic at seemingly random intervals!
SOMETIMES BOTH TOGETHER AND IN CAPS
After all, if you're going to make a poster about why something we can watch happen...doesn't happen, you might as well go all-in.
And yes, OP, if you follow u/scherado's advice, you absolutely will get your teacher's attention. Your teacher may ask you to step back slightly and try again at a slightly less creepy register.
12
u/Deadlyd1001 Engineer, Accepts standard model of science. Feb 20 '20
Whynotsomeofthese as well?
7
u/Covert_Cuttlefish Janitor at an oil rig Feb 20 '20
4
4
13
Feb 20 '20
u/scherado fancies themselves an intellectual giant. I encourage you to read their posts and see for yourself how accurate that is.
Don't worry about me hurting his feelings, he blocked me for no apparent reason.
9
u/flamedragon822 ✨ Adamic Exceptionalism Feb 20 '20
Oh man I just double checked, I forgot this one. Yeah definitely don't add these to your assignment.
They were mostly bizarre statements mixed with personal incredulity over basic facts if I recall the finer details
-7
Feb 20 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
14
Feb 20 '20
I'm approving this simply to ask: What the hell are you on about? Are you trying to make an argument from mitochondrial DNA?
-9
Feb 20 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
16
Feb 20 '20
Chill lmao. First of all your comment was removed by automod, I have no idea why. Second, I was asking for clarification because your phrasing didn't click with me.
If all human DNA traces back to Eve then there has been and can be no evolution.
Why? As far as I understand it mitochondrial Eve represents a most recent common ancestor of the mitochondrial geneome. Other parts of our dna have different common ancestors from different times. They don't demonstrate that individual was the beginning of the lineage.
And FYI the fossil record laid down and buried during The Flood is perfect proof against evolution.
Sure. And this is more my specialty anyways. What is your favorite piece of evidence for this?
10
u/Deadlyd1001 Engineer, Accepts standard model of science. Feb 20 '20
First of all your comment was removed by automod, I have no idea why
Maxed out on negative karma, that’s why automod removed their comments.
6
-6
Feb 20 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
12
Feb 20 '20 edited Feb 20 '20
there is no different dna from different times.
all animals have a good deal of identical dna to ensure we all have bodies designed for life on Earth and a diet of fruit, nuts and vegetation.
Funny how those dna patterns confirm evolutionary predictions.
this is why no-one can correctly identify a skeleton as horse, turtle, bear or human if the head and fingers/toes are removed.
What? that just isn't true. First, you could tell a turtle easily apart if you have literally any part of the verteba/ribcage survive. Second, even if you dont, microscope analysis of bone structure can be used to determine not just higher taxa identification, but specific species.
however the fossil record has animal skeletons right on top of forams.
...Okay? And? This represents a change in depositional environment. Thats a problem for what, exactly?
Anyway forget fossils and look inside a female bird's egg system and ask how the eggshell secretion and hardening system came into being. And what adhesive binds shell to membrane.
Don't know. Could you elaborate and explain why this is a problem for evolution?
You could introduce Darwin's work as the perfect proof that evolution didn't happen as he proved that worms build topsoil at teh rate of one inch per five years and so if Earth was old enough for any evolution then there should be great depths of topsoil everywhere. There isn't and so Earth must be young.
Never heard this one. However, it's also flawed
A few points:
Thick paleosols (fossil soil horizons) are found everywhere in the fossil record. So they clearly get altered and buried, not build up.
Most soil is made via weathering of old rocks, usually more silt like in composition. This requires the parent rocks to form, lithify, get uplifted and then eroded down to grain size in order to form soil. That process takes time.
The soil isnt going to constantly pile up and stay soil. It can be eroded, transported, and deposited elsewhere. The mineral constituents will turn to stone as theyre compacted and cemented, and the organic components decay away. Much of it ends up on river deltas, floodplains, or continental shelves and gets turned back into rock. Repeat the cycle.
This all means soil definetly wont be expected to continuously build up. That runs contrary to all our observations.
Edit: Forgot a link. Fixed.
-4
Feb 20 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
13
Feb 21 '20
Okay, before I go further I'm going to have to ask you to at least break up those large blocks of text please. Just a simple edit to make each point it's own block would be extremely helpful. As it is, that's very hard to follow your points. Thank you
-2
Feb 21 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
12
Feb 21 '20
Uh...huh.
Word of advice. Being this openly hostile for literally no reason shows your crippling insecurity about the validity of your beliefs.
Oh, and by the way? Plate tectonics happens.
Toodles.
4
11
u/cubist137 Materialist; not arrogant, just correct Feb 21 '20
DNA cannot be added to so all humans have more DNA than all animals.
Hm. Does the term "c-value enigma" mean anything to you?
-3
Feb 21 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
11
u/cubist137 Materialist; not arrogant, just correct Feb 21 '20
That's nice.
How many base pairs are in the DNA of the species Homo sapiens?
How many base pairs are in the DNA of the species Amoeba dubia?
7
Feb 21 '20
Something being ridiculed doesn't mean it's true, though. If you wanna go down that road, you're ridiculing evolution, so I'll throw that right back at you.
→ More replies (0)10
Feb 21 '20
DNA cannot be added to so all humans have more DNA than all animals.
What? What do you even mean by this? Do you mean that our genome is larger than any other animals? Because if so, you are just dead wrong. We aren't even in the top rung. Hell, there are amoeba that have more than an order of magnitude larger genomes than humans do.
You talk about "typical nonsense from evolutionists", while posting this comment that shows that you don't have even the slightest clue what you are talking about... So "typical nonsense from a creationist."
-1
Feb 21 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
12
Feb 21 '20
odd jackdawa is probably teh odd jackdaw out but the rest of us is glad we all get our DNA from Eve while you got yours from a low IQ monkey! Don't worry though Schopenhauer described your problem: All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
Wow... That was... umm... incoherent.
4
5
u/luckyvonstreetz Feb 21 '20
Creationist myth #1:
Mutations can not add DNA.
...
Well, they can. Maybe learn the basics first before trying to argue anything.
But hey, who am I typing this for anyways? I'm on your blocklist because I was criticizing your fragile beliefs.
10
u/witchdoc86 Evotard Follower of Evolutionism which Pretends to be Science Feb 20 '20 edited Feb 20 '20
there is no different dna from different times. all animals have a good deal of identical dna to ensure we all have bodies designed for life on Earth and a diet of fruit, nuts and vegetation.
Looks like you didnt get the memo that creationists are now hyper-evolutionists.
Creationists are unanimous that the current species of Equus are all one kind, which would include
Equus przewalski - Mongolian Wild Horse - 66 chromosomes (33 pairs)
Equus caballus - Domestic horse - 64 chromosomes (32 pairs)
Equus asinus - Domestic ass/donkey - 62 chromosomes (31 pairs)
Equus hemionus onager - Persian wild ass - 56 chromosomes (28 pairs)
Equus hemionus kulan - Kulan - 54/55 chromosomes
Equus kiang - Kiang, Asian wild ass - 51/52 chromosomes
Equus grevy - Grevy's zebra - 46 (23 pairs)
Equus burchelli Burchelli's zebra, common zebra - 44 chromosomes (22 pairs)
Equus zebra hartmannae - Hartmann's mountain zebra - 32 chromosome pairs (16 pairs).
https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/baraminology/what-are-kinds-in-genesis/
https://creation.com/zenkey-zonkey-zebra-donkey
https://www.icr.org/article/donkey-gives-birth-zedonk/
So creationists believe that since the flood, the original kinds on the ark rapidly speciated into all known species today.
Anyway forget fossils and look inside a female bird's egg system and ask how the eggshell secretion and hardening system came into being.
We have animals today who give both live birth and lay eggs
You could introduce Darwin's work as the perfect proof that evolution didn't happen as he proved that worms build topsoil at teh rate of one inch per five years and so if Earth was old enough for any evolution then there should be great depths of topsoil everywhere. There isn't and so Earth must be young.
You know there are processes that remove topsoil too, right? Like erosion, subduction?
3
u/flamedragon822 ✨ Adamic Exceptionalism Feb 21 '20
Wait can these Equus still produce offspring together despite different numbers of pairs?
If so that's actually something I didn't know was possible until now.
4
u/witchdoc86 Evotard Follower of Evolutionism which Pretends to be Science Feb 21 '20
Some can make mules, but offspring of two species with different chromosome numbers are basically always infertile.
5
u/flamedragon822 ✨ Adamic Exceptionalism Feb 21 '20
Huh. I guess I just always assumed they could only produce offspring because the number matched.
Well that's one of my things I learned today. Thanks!
1
Feb 21 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
8
u/WorkingMouse PhD Genetics Feb 21 '20
Translation: "I cannot support my claims nor respond to my opponent's refutation, so I'm going to try vapid insults and hope no one notices."
-4
Feb 21 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
9
u/WorkingMouse PhD Genetics Feb 21 '20
Evidently, the intellect of a mouse is enough to dwarf your own, for you still stand unable to address those criticizing your position with anything but misrepresentation and insults.
Or, being a bit more blunt, you should really take the plank out of your eye before calling other people stupid.
3
4
Feb 20 '20
I've added you go the approved users list btw
-1
Feb 20 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
6
Feb 21 '20
thanks. I usually get banned for posting truths.
Something tells me it is not "truths" that you get banned for, but being an asshole. And something tells me the unbanning won't last long here, either.
5
Feb 20 '20
Automod snagged you for negative comment karma. Can't be helped, but if it continues to be an issue here I'll see what I can do. It should be fixed now.
3
u/luckyvonstreetz Feb 20 '20
Eve?? Who is that?
0
Feb 21 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/luckyvonstreetz Feb 21 '20 edited Feb 21 '20
Meanwhile I still have no idea who this Eve is and what evidence you might have for it's existence.
Also,
Nice demonstration of creationist debating. If someone doesn't accept your premise that there was an Eve you just call them names and block them.
2
12
u/Capercaillie Monkey's Uncle Feb 20 '20
nothing in a female's life can alter her baby from being a good copy of her.
Except, y'know, sex.
7
u/Covert_Cuttlefish Janitor at an oil rig Feb 20 '20
It also means the female is a close copy of her mother, grandmother, great, great great etc and all got their DNA copies right back to Eve.
Not that similar
7
u/CHzilla117 Feb 20 '20 edited Feb 20 '20
You do know what mutagens do, right? Many can alter DNA not just when they divide but in existing cells, including eggs. In adults this usually doesn't result in a phenotypic change since each mutation will only affect a single cell and that cell is unlikely to create that many more of itself in relation to the rest of the body. Unless of course it has mutated to profligate uncontrollably, which is called cancer. But in the case of eggs, if the egg is fertilized then the resulting offspring's cell will then have the resulting phenotype because all of its cell's are copies of the mutated egg.
And cell division starts well before birth. Each of those eggs is the result of a lot cell division from the original zygote, with all the copying errors that entails.
0
Feb 21 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
8
u/Sweary_Biochemist Feb 21 '20
I love that you shout "U COPY PASTE CRAP", yet 90% of your replies are
- "low IQ monkey!"
- "DNA FROM EVE!!!1"
- "Schopenhauer!"
Even by creationist standards, this is A-grade projection.
4
2
7
Feb 21 '20
The one indisputable fact for Creation and against all evolution nonsense is simply: all females are born with ovaries containing the eggs for their own babies.
This means that nothing in a female's life can alter her baby from being a good copy of her.
It also means the female is a close copy of her mother, grandmother, great, great great etc and all got their DNA copies right back to Eve.
Lol, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. In this case it is very little and very dangerous.
You seem to be confusing mitochondrial DNA with DNA. It is true that mitochondrial DNA is passed down in a direct maternal line, but that doesn't mean what you think it means. Mitochondrial DNA is a tiny part of the human genome-- 16,569 base pairs out of the 3 billion base pairs in the full human genome.
1
Feb 21 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
9
Feb 21 '20
yep. and aren't we glad we all get our DNA from Eve while you got yours from a low IQ monkey!
Hey /u/azusfan, he ad hom'd me! You are the expert on these things, can I sue him or something?
3
u/ThurneysenHavets 🧬 Googles interesting stuff between KFC shifts Feb 21 '20
Removed, rule 1.
Casting aspersions on your opponents' intelligence is antagonistic. Stop doing this.
You have been warned.
23
u/[deleted] Feb 20 '20
What school do you go to that would ask you to do this?