argument argue about share argue how
 
argue for



pros and cons   against

 
All TopicsLifestyleReligion

Arguments for and against

Evolution

started by Katzwinkel on 10/26/09.

Evolution
For Against
 
arguesreason
Reasonable belief. Those who oppose its probability have not studied it...most often they have heard someone else's criticism.

by spazol (74) on 11/12/09.

41
argumentsreasons

arguesreason
@allonzo1

You dismiss evolution in your arguments against by claiming it not to be based on science.

My stance has always been that evolution is science. That it is the best and most elegant solution to the question of life and how we arrived at this given point. As I have already stated, it may not be the final nail in the coffin but it sure is going in that direction. I urge you to read more on this topic. I gave you the term modern evolutionary synthesis as a starting point for your own research.

As for, ID, it is a non-alternative and non-solution. Again, it is pure speculation and mysticism. Your argument fails because you dismiss evolution on grounds for it not being science (in your opinion), yet the 'solution' you offer is the farthest from science as one can possibly get (which you openly embrace).

However, given that ID is NOT science and according to your stance on evolution, ID must also then be rejected by yourself (which you seem not to do). Do you not see the conflict in your arguments? You reject one for not being science and in turn give us one that is out loud laughably, most definitely not science - and on what grounds? - because you just believe.

Yes we are all curious about the world around us. Which is why many of us seek careers, hobbies, interests in science. What we don't do is let superstition and mysticism muddle our view of reality. Give us an alternative against evolution that is grounded, not on late night musings over life.

by otm_shank (54.55) on 1/6/10.

20
argumentsreasons

arguesreason
"I just don't claim evolution to be a science, nor do the experts."

What experts are claiming evolution not to be a science? Aside from a select few that still cling to their ardent religious beliefs, I would argue that the majority of 'experts' would not balk at stating that evolution is science.

"What i have pointed out is that on a molecular level, science cannot explain why these molecules act like organisms carrying out tasks."

1. Yes, obviously science cannot explain everything we observe today. That is a given. However, science CAN already explain much of what we observe today - more than you seem to give credit to. Furthermore, science will provide the solutions to the problems and questions we have today in the future. That is the essence of the scientific method.

2. Intelligent design most certainly does not explain on a molecular level why organisms behave as they do. I will state again that ID is as far away from the scientific method as one can get. Not only is ID not a solution nor verifiable, but it opens up a slew of other ridiculous problems on its own. Furthermore, because an organism appears to be operating with 'intelligent' guile does not make it so. Applying the construct of 'intelligence' further increases the problem as we must then define what is intelligence and in what context is this intelligence in. ID is similar to how Norse cultures explained the existence and circumstances of thunder and lighting.

3. Evolutionary studies (biological, classical, etc), like any science, is a constantly progressing endeavor. Yes, there are issues within the community regarding how complex processes work, however, this does not signify nor does anyone imply that the solution therefore defaults to a 'designer'. It also does not reduce the fact that organisms are constantly evolving through the process of natural selection. Again, natural selection allows for the immense species diversification we witness today and provides an elegant mechanism as to how we arrived at this given moment without the need of a third-party designer.

by otm_shank (54.55) on 1/7/10.

20
argumentsreasons

arguesreason
Evolution is a theory. A theory is a phenomenon in which an experiment can be repeated and yield the same results time after time. A scientific experiment can never result in fact, only theory. Another famous theory is gravity, which many of us regard as a fact. It's up to you to have faith in the scientists.

by YoyoKirby (51.02) on 1/28/10.

10
argumentsreasons

arguesreason
"What drives these proteins to act like intelligent operators?"

Modern Evolutionary Synthesis.

"Finally, studying rocks, fossils, and tree diagrams of species is the study of history not science and certainly not enlightening on how new species came into being."

Studying fossil records is not enlightening to how species evolve and came into being? Really? So for your argument, you simply are doing away with all fossil records and all of Earth's prior organic inhabitants of the past several billion years? That is pretty convenient wouldn't you say? I definitely got a kick out of your "implied study of evolution."


by otm_shank (54.55) on 12/31/09.

01
argumentsreasons

arguesreason
"Evolution as a theory - yes. Evolution as a science - no way!"

If we are to accept your position that evolution is just a theory and not science, what does that make of your position on intelligent design? Does that not also make intelligent design just a theory and not science as well? In which case, your current position negates your prior arguments regarding intelligent design and we can throw out all of your ID claims - unless we are to suppose that your actual position is that intelligent design is science? If such is the case, I will go ahead and assume you will be pleading insanity. If you stipulate that neither are science, then we enter the speculation black hole in which you can dismiss anything at whim and the only question is, where do we stop? As such, your only logical position is to accept that evolution is science and instead provide us with non-speculative, scientific evidence which repudiates evolution to back your arguments.

by otm_shank (54.55) on 12/31/09.

01
argumentsreasons

arguesreason
"i really can't argue with your points, basically because they don't make any sense. "

Have you re-read anything you have posted by any chance? In one round your argue for ID and immediately in another you dismiss evolution on the grounds that you do not consider it science. How is that making any sense?

"Arguing is much more that just taking what the other person says, twisting it, and restating it in an erroneous manner."

I am arguing against the logic of your speculations. Your arguments conflict even against themselves. If you want to complain that I am twisting words, well, so be it I suppose.

"Take a chill pill and get a life!"

Way to get offended on a web site that is dedicated to arguing.

"Another clear observation is that you have virtually no knowledge beyond newspaper articles about general chemistry or physics, let alone a field as complicated as molecular biology."

Well, I guess we can go on making assumptions all day long.

by otm_shank (54.55) on 1/5/10.

01
argumentsreasons

arguesreason
It is as close as you can come to a "fact" in science. It is the basis for modern biology. Science "accepts" evolution because there is no current better explanation for how the varying life forms on Earth came to be.

While reading Eugenie Scott's Evolution Vs. Creationism one day, the section explaining the age of the earth troubled me. Not because I believe that violent little collection of short stories called The Bible is accurate in its claim that the earth is but 6,000 - 10,000 years old; but because I had no practical way of fathoming just how long 4.5 billion years (the true age of the earth) was.

So I came up with a way to imagine this enormous amount of time. Imagine that a year is one inch long. This means that I am 35.9 inches, or almost 3 feet, old. World War II ended 64 inches, or a little over five feet ago. The Declaration of Independence was 233 inches, or almost 19-and-a-half feet ago. You get the idea.

Using this measurement, the Young Earth Creationists believe that the earth is between 500 and 833 feet old. For all of you jocks out there, that's 1.38 - 2.31 football fields. Let's just say 2 for the ease of math.

How long is 4.5 billion inches? It's 375 million feet; 71,022 miles; or 2.85 times around the earth at the equator.

So the difference between the age of the Earth to biblical literalists, and the age of the earth to intelligent people, is the difference between two Soldier Fields and the better part of three-times around the Earth. No wonder they don't buy evolution. Dummies.


by froggerus (55.06) on 11/22/09.

13
argumentsreasons

 
 
argumentsdebate
Yoyokirby

What "experiment" are you referencing? i don't recall man creating a new species.

by allonzo1 (22.07) on 1/29/10.

01
argumentargue

argumentsdebate
Evolution as a theory - yes. Evolution as a science - no way!
I get a kick out of spazol, regarding his implied studying of evolution. To put the study of evolution in perspective, I submit the following. Arguably the most difficult courses in undergrad chemistry and chemical engineering are Physical Chemistry and Kinetics, respectively. These courses essentially deal with determining equilibrium points of inorganic chemical reactions under various conditions such as pH, temperature, and the presence of like anions and cations in solution. The driving force for reaction is electronegative forces. With that said, Organic reactions are often too complex to predict and reactions in molecular biology can only be predicted based on observation. Evolution, or lack thereof, is about what happens in cells on the molecular biological level. I have read a fair amount about DNA and RNA, and the many proteins and amino acids that are present in cells; and still I come up with a virtual blank understanding. I will comment that molecular biology is a fascinating read and a more fascinating visual experience to see. (check resources for animation of cell division) A opposed to inorganic reactions where atoms act like little magnets being attracted and repelled, molecular biology in cell is like a factory with scores of independent workers carrying out independent tasks. What drives these proteins to act like intelligent operators? This is among the many probing questions to ask. Finally, studying rocks, fossils, and tree diagrams of species is the study of history not science and certainly not enlightening on how new species came into being.



by allonzo1 (22.07) on 12/30/09.

02
argumentargue

argumentsdebate
Again, otm_shank, you have missed the point. Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is a term that generally predates molecular biology. Also, its updated spin off "theories" it have nothing at all to do with the driving forces among reaction. I'm talking about the mechanism in the cell that no one even attempts to explain. My point in my first entry was that the actions of molecules in inorganic chemistry can be generally explained by one driving force, electronegativity; but still, inorganic chemistry is very complex. Within cells there are operations, i.e. the movement of the strands f DNA, the splitting of the bonds in the DNA one-by-on, and ad infinitum. These things are just assumed to be given within the "design" of chemistry............Also, just something to consider. Arguing is much more that just taking what the other person says, twisting it, and restating it in an erroneous manner.

by allonzo1 (22.07) on 1/1/10.

02
argumentargue

argumentsdebate
otm_shank

I think we are like trains passing in the night. You repeatedly misstate my position. I have never said that I have rejected evolution as a theory. I just don't claim evolution to be a science, nor do the experts. What i have pointed out is that on a molecular level, science cannot explain why these molecules act like organisms carrying out tasks. Current science does not even attempt to explain why this happens. As i mentioned about inorganic chemistry, there are reams of electronegativity tables that help predict reactions, but nothing exists to explain why a single molecule in a cell will perform a task.

by allonzo1 (22.07) on 1/6/10.

02
argumentargue

argumentsdebate
otm-shank

It seems like deja vou all over again. The only conflict in my positions is in your mind. Where does any knowledgeable source say that evolution is anything but a theory, and when did i dismiss it? Also, with regard to ID, i have described it as the best explanation available for the design and origin of the universe. Apparently, you don't like to be confronted with the mysteries of the universe, whether it be life of chemical design. Aren't you a just a little curious about these matters beyond a Walter Cronkite, "Well, that's the way it is."

by allonzo1 (22.07) on 1/5/10.

03
argumentargue

argumentsdebate
otm_shank

i really can't argue with your points, basically because they don't make any sense. When did i say that ID was really anything more that the best explanation for a very unlike set of circumstances? " Another clear observation is that you have virtually no knowledge beyond newspaper articles about general chemistry or physics, let alone a field as complicated as molecular biology.

Also, "plead insanity? Take a chill pill and get a life!

by allonzo1 (22.07) on 12/31/09.

04
argumentargue

 
Evolution
 
         
argue   for
© 2009 13 Guys Named Ed, LLC   •   About   •   Feedback   •   Sitemap
against   argues