Evolution

[blackbite10]

Hello I have studied biology and especially evolution in great detail for many years and would like to ask if anyone has a good argument against evolution for me to debate. If you have any questions for me I'll be happy to answer them as soon as I have time.

Also It is important to note that I used to be protagonist and do know a great deal about the bible.

 

[blackbite10]

My counter point to it would be that any fossils that far back are from tiny soft bodied animals that rarely leave fossils. the vast majority of which would be at the bottom of the ocean and have almost zero chance of being discovered.
we have discovered some however it is also very difficult to tell whether they are truly transitional or not because those animals are so different from what we have with us today.
You also must note that Precambrian fossils don't have bones and are usually easily overlooked due to the fact that the look like lines and circles.

 

[blackbite10]

really? is this the only argument I'm going to get? I was expecting better.

 

[blackbite10]

Hopefully you will get a creationist to answer for you. My only objection to evolution is how the first single-celled organisms formed and how all the first animal phyla appeared since we have virtually no fossil evidence going that far back. That is why i've always been open to an Intelligent Designer for the first cells or very early life. I'm not religious though. The majority of the evolution theory i accept as scientifically valid.

If you don't mind me asking, what is your religion? It states ''other''?

We have created synthetic life in a lab so we now know that the first cells could have formed. Otherwise I completely agree and in fact I believe that there is something else out there but I don't think any of the religions are correct.-apparently I was wrong. so please disregard this statement.

I like to think of myself as a free thinker.

 

[Resha Caner]

The problem is that you're asking for a formal debate. If you go to the regular creation/evolution forums you'll get plenty of ad-hoc debate.

If you really want a formal debate, you need to post the question to be debated. Your query put the burden on creationists to pose the question. I guess if you want me to do that, I can, thought I've never tried a formal debate on the Internet.

 

[RickG]

The lack of Precambrian intermediate fossils. Going back 600 million years or more there is zero fossil evidence for evolution or common descent. We don't have any evidence of transitionals that far back, which is probably the best argument against evolution.

Actually the fact that the earliest fossils are the simplest life forms which gradually become more complex and diversified through geologic history is the best evidence for evolution. This diversity was not possible until the end of several snowball earth events, the development of an oxygenated ocean and atmosphere just prior to the Precambrian. Want some transitional fossils, showing evolution, how about trilobites?

http://www.geochem.geos.vt.edu/bgep/pubs/Chapter_11_Knoll.pdf
http://earthsciences.ucr.edu/docs/HughesBioEssays2003.pdf
http://earthsciences.ucr.edu/docs/Hughes2007AnRev.pdf
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

And for Precambrian evolution.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0301926887900441http://www.pnas.org/content/105/9/3197.full
The biological explosion at the precambrian-cambrian boundary
ScienceDirect - Precambrian Research : Precambrian sulfur isotopes and a possible role for sulfite in the evolution of biological sulfate reduction
ScienceDirect - Planetary and Space Science : The ultraviolet history of the terrestrial planets — implications for biological evolution
http://www.geosc.psu.edu/~jfk4/Geosci_500/Discussion%20papers/Last%20week/Knauth%202005.pdf
ScienceDirect - Precambrian Research : Tectonic controls on atmospheric, climatic, and biological evolution 3.5–2.4Ga
Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. - Astrobiology - 3(1):7
SpringerLink - Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres, Volume 5, Numbers 1-2


Now, as you were saying, there is a lack of what? It is easy to make claims, but if one is not familiar with the science, it's rather hard to back them up. Might I suggest learning something about evolution and the fossil record before blindly criticizing it.

 

[USincognito]

The problem is that you're asking for a formal debate. If you go to the regular creation/evolution forums you'll get plenty of ad-hoc debate.

If you really want a formal debate, you need to post the question to be debated. Your query put the burden on creationists to pose the question. I guess if you want me to do that, I can, thought I've never tried a formal debate on the Internet.

Additionally, this subforum is for the Formal Debat itself. There's an invitation subforum which is where he should have placed the offer, accepted a specific topic and one person to debate with. It's would also be a good idea to notify a mod or two that the thread is an actual formal debate so they can keep out posts by those who are not the participants.

 

[blackbite10]

Sorry. I've got a degree in biology and can't figure out a forum... Anyways RickG you put forward some good points so I think that argument was soundly beaten....unless someone has a rebuttal?

 

[Resha Caner]

Sorry. I've got a degree in biology and can't figure out a forum...

Does that mean you're not extending an invitation to a formal debate?

Additionally, this subforum is for the Formal Debat itself. There's an invitation subforum which is where he should have placed the offer, accepted a specific topic and one person to debate with.

How often does that actually happen? I've never taken the time to follow a formal debate here. If I were to participate, I think it would be fun to also appoint judges and a scoring criteria - which I didn't see mentioned in the rules.

 

[blackbite10]

Does that mean you're not extending an invitation to a formal debate?



How often does that actually happen? I've never taken the time to follow a formal debate here. If I were to participate, I think it would be fun to also appoint judges and a scoring criteria - which I didn't see mentioned in the rules.

I honestly have no idea how to do any of that....

 

[Resha Caner]

As I understand it, Person A makes a statement they want to defend, such as:

Unicorns only eat hay on Tuesday.

If Person B finds that as a properly posed thesis, they accept the challenge with the intent of showing the statement to be false (either by showing that unicorns are known to also eat hay on Wednesday or by showing they are known to also eat oats on Tuesday).

The next step is to agree on the ground rules. It would be something like:

This debate will last for 5 rounds. A round consists of 1 post by A followed by 1 post by B. A post must be made with 24 hours of the predecessor.

There could be other rules as well. For example:
* The definition of "unicorn" and "hay" must be given prior to the debate.
* All facts must be cited.
* etc.

Like I said, I think a panel of judges would be a fun addition as well. They could judge each round on things like clarity, consistency, rigor, how well the opponents points are addressed, etc. But the judging wouldn't include points for the "truth" of one position or the other ... although I suppose each judge could be allowed some closing comments on their views.

 

[blackbite10]

I like the idea but I doubt I have the time for it.

 

[CabVet]

We have created synthetic life in a lab so we now know that the first cells could have formed.

This is absolutely incorrect.

 

[blackbite10]

This is absolutely incorrect.

Search it in google. I would post links but I'm still not aloud.

 

[sfs]

Search it in google. I would post links but I'm still not aloud.

We have not created synthetic life, nor do we have any clear idea of how the first cells formed. What has been done is to create synthetic genomes, which is much easier but still very cool.

 

[pgp_protector]

We have not created synthetic life, nor do we have any clear idea of how the first cells formed. What has been done is to create synthetic genomes, which is much easier but still very cool.

I'd guess they're going by a misunderstanding of this article.
Scientists Create First Self-Replicating Synthetic Life | Wired Science | Wired.com

 

[blackbite10]

I'd guess they're going by a misunderstanding of this article.

sigh...I was going on the information given to me by a friend whom I thought would have researched it better. The article itself is still fascinating.

 

[pgp_protector]

Search it in google. I would post links but I'm still not aloud.

sigh...I was going on the information given to me by a friend whom I thought would have researched it better. The article itself is still fascinating.

You should always do the research for yourself first before telling others to do it for you then.