Thread: Three *Controversial* Websites

Originally Posted by Dianeva

Like that e-coli experiment. I've heard it argued that the e-coli only lost genetic information, and that if evolution were true, they should have evolved a lot more than they did given the number of generations that passed. But then I was thinking, maybe they shouldn't be expected to evolve that much since they reproduce asexually, and their environment is a lot more controlled in the lab than it would be in the wild where they'd be able to evolve more freely.

That's a straw man argument. The theory of evolution doesn't a priori say anything about "genetic information". It says that organisms that reproduce reproduce and organisms that don't reproduce don't reproduce. Because there is variation in organisms, any variation that helps an organism reproduce will be present in future populations and any variation that prevents an organism from reproducing will not be present in future populations. By future generations, I don't necessarily mean the next generation but "far enough along". That's the core of it.

It's really exactly the same process as "artificial selection" or "selective breeding". Not even the creationists deny that. The only difference is that instead of a person selecting specific organisms for some inane and arbitrary trait, it's just life doing it. The traits that allow an organism to breed more get selected for. No designer required.

So however you define "genetic information", you would only expect to see it increasing over the generations if doing so helped the organisms that had more of it reproduce more than organisms that had less of it. The fallacy in their argument is that they're replacing the real predictions of evolution with something else and defeating that argument. Generally when you see people start talking about "genetic information", it's a sign that you're in for a load of bullshit. Also, most creationists don't even think about denying what they label "micro evolution" like what would happen over the order of a hundred generations in a lab with bacteria. There's just too much reproducible evidence. So whoever is making this e. coli argument is a hard liner indeed.

It's all blind pointless speculation. I'd need to actually dedicate a lot of time to looking it up to get to the truth, and every time I've tried to do that I've found myself burried in articles that are so time-consuming I end up giving up. If you don't mind me asking you or anyone else, what do you think the best way would be for me to learn why evolution is almost certainly a fact?

Think about my explanation of it. In the first paragraph, pretty much the only thing that isn't self evident is the the observation that there is variation in organisms but that's an empirical fact that not even the creationists deny. I've even see creationists try to use it as evidence against god. How the fuck do you take the driving force of a theory and use it as evidence against it?

I think there was a thread in the science forum on book recommendations. Really, the beauty of evolution is that it's pretty much the only scientific theory for which you need no evidence. Once you get it, it has the force of a mathematical proof. There's no way that it could be wrong.
It would require a god to actively prevent it.

For all I know, I'm being as irrational as he is for believing in evolution without a good reason.

I can vaguely agree with this. The problem is that you're believing in it. I don't believe in evolution. I accept it because I understand it. This is just like math. I don't believe that a² + b² = c². I know it. It's the same with evolution.

EDIT:

Also, Ben Stein is a lying sack of shit.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

That's a straw man argument. The theory of evolution doesn't a priori say anything about "genetic information". It says that organisms that reproduce reproduce and organisms that don't reproduce don't reproduce. Because there is variation in organisms, any variation that helps an organism reproduce will be present in future populations and any variation that prevents an organism from reproducing will not be present in future populations. By future generations, I don't necessarily mean the next generation but "far enough along". That's the core of it.

It's really exactly the same process as "artificial selection" or "selective breeding". Not even the creationists deny that. The only difference is that instead of a person selecting specific organisms for some inane and arbitrary trait, it's just life doing it. The traits that allow an organism to breed more get selected for. No designer required.

You've basically summed it up. How is this so f_cking hard to understand and accept? It's so obvious, but "oh I rather go believe in this other thing that has absolutely no evidence to back it up (Creation)".

I know more and more people are starting to get it as the years go by (haven't heard of too many old people arguing in favor of evolution). I just get tired of people on TV are all like "I survived the crash because God was on my side" or "if it weren't for Jesus, I'd be either be dead or in jail", like come on!

Hey, maybe they'll go extinct. (I know what a f_cked up thing to say).

Anyone else interested in the Evolution Vs Creation argument should check out this video: YouTube - God must exist... because the crocoduck doesn't!