15 questions for Atheists
Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-06-2011, 10:00 AM
RE: 15 questions for Atheists
15 questions? Challenge accepted, without external sources. Also, Biology revision Big Grin

Oh, by the way...

1) There are a lot of theories for this, and in my opinion, the most primitive form of life are prions and viruses. Prions are proteins that change the conformation of other proteins into that of theirs, and are usually regarded as ancestors of viruses. Viruses are like bacterial cells, stripped down to the most basic function - reproduction. Viruses replicate by the infection of various types of cells, prokaryotic and eukaryotic. Maybe membrane-based viruses evolved into basic prokaryotes?

2) Not really sure on this one. This is most likely due to chance, and it may lead back to the times of early viruses and prokaryotes. DNA is a very stable structure, with each nucleotide bound on a deoxyribose sugar which is part of the stable sugar phosphate backbone. While there is a chance of more stabler structures, DNA may be formed by chance and is picked up as the more ideal material used for gene expression. After all, it took millions of years for prokaryotes to evolve into eukaryotes, so chance plays a very huge role for the assembly of the genetic code.

3) -_- Seriously? Changes in the DNA molecule will lead to a change in the protein product synthesised. Some mutations can be small and unnoticeable, for instance neutral mutations, while for some, a single base change will screw your protein up by changing the amino acid in the polypeptide sequence which may have different physical properties, for instance sickle-cell anemia, the sickling of a red-blood cell due to a SINGLE base change from adenine to thymine in a part of the DNA. Such subtle changes, when accumulated, throughout long periods of time, coupled with selection pressure by the environment, led to the huge diversity of organisms we see today.

4) Natural selection IS PART OF evolution! There are other factors that lead to the diversity of life. This question is flawed somewhat. The other factors are MUTATION, GENE FLOW, GENETIC DRIFT and ARTIFICIAL SELECTION.

5) Not sure also but most likely by chance. Here's an illustration. Imagine two factories producing cheese. Assuming there are 5 steps to the cheese making process and each factory starts with the same materials. Now, Factory A processes the milk at level 4, sends the milk to level 1 for molding, then to level 3 for fermentation, to level 5 for processing of the cheese, to level 2 for packaging and finally to the basement for shipping. Compare that to Factory B which starts the cheese-making process from the 5th floor to the basement, in descending order. Which factory will produce cheese more efficiently? Apply this analogy to cells, and consider the fact that since the size of cells are so tiny, efficiency is the key to survival. Now add in selection pressure by the environment (or with relation to the anaolgy, competition from other cheese-makers). The most efficient cells survive, and live on to reproduce.
NOTE: I don't really know anything about cheese-making so the processes are guessed.

6) What. THEN HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT THEY ARE DESIGNED? Complexity does not equal to intelligent design. How do we assume that they are not "intelligently" designed? The many flaws inherent in living organisms. Why do humans still get cancer, why do some animals go extinct? Also, explain mutated fetuses, and other warped sides of nature. The reason for the so many adapted traits and abilities we see today is all due to evolutionary forces including but not limited to natural selection.

7) Interesting question, I asked my teacher about this too. I'm not sure but here's a possible way. In animal cells there's the mitochondria and in plant cells there's the chloroplasts. Both, besides the nucleus possess a double membrane. Both the mitochondrion and chloroplast also have their own DNA, and have to ability to produce energy. These organelles may be simple organisms in the long past, but have intergrated with other cells, most likely due to their ability to produce ATP for energy. They start to function as a group, as each cell become more specialised in their function. In the end, their dependency became a pre-requisite for survival, and thus multi-cellular organisms arose.

8) Asexual reproduction ensures that all the offspring will have the same genotype and thus phenotype as the parent. Sexual reproduction may lead to offspring with different genotypes and hence phenotypes. Now, the second will lead to variation, like what ghostexorcist mentioned. Variation will lead to greater survivability of a species. How? Let's say Population A, in which everyone has the same genotype, and Population B, in which everyone has a different genotype, are both infected with a disease. Population A will die off a lot faster since everyone will have equal resistance levels to the disease while in Population B, there is a chance of some individuals who are immune to the disease and proceed to multiply, producing a next generation of more resistant offspring. The answer to the question is again, evolutionary forces that ensured sexual reproduction as a mode of reproduction is beneficial to the survival of the species.

(In case you are wondering how organisms that undergo asexual reproduction survive to this day, it is due to their ability to integrate foreign DNA into their cells, and a high rate of mutation within a population)

9) OH COME ON, you do not expect the poor archaeologists to DIG UP THE WHOLE FREAKING PLANET to complete the fossil records, do you? Didn't God taught you to be compassionate towards other people? Furthermore, do you expect every single transitional fossil to be intact?

10) Let's rephrase the question to something which has an identical answer. "WHY DO WE STILL HAVE MONKEYS IF HUMAN EVOLVED FROM MONKEYS?"
Speciation, the origin of species is an outcome of evolution. The environment on Earth is different everywhere, there are deserts, rainforests, oceans... and each contain a different selection pressure which acts on a population. If a population is comfortable in an environment, as ghostexorcist also mentioned, they do not need to further adapt. If a population is large enough, random mating occurs, no mutation, no gene flow, and no natural selection occurs, then evolution should not occur, leading to speciation.

11) We humans are special because we are self-aware, we want to know ourselves. This self-awareness is due to consciousness, which is due to our complex minds. The self-awareness arises when we are 2-3 years old, where we began exploring the world around us, to use the environment to know ourselves. Is there really a need to involve God to ensure a meaning to life. For instance, my aim in life is to eradicate the dengue virus and invent a cure for Alzheimer's syndrome, and that defines who I am. For now, I am (in terms of the US education system, I'm not from US) a high school student getting ready for the A Levels, and that's my current goal in life.

12) "Once upon a time, there was an adenine molecule named Addie. Addie was best friends with Timmy, a thymine molecule. They live together in a DNA fortress, which has a giant moat called Lake Cytoplasm. Around Lake Cytoplasm are the ribosome factories which churn out proteins. Addie's teacher is Mr DNA Polymerase. Every day, he visits them and talks to them about the wonders of the outside world. One fateful day, there was a huge disturbance. The UV rays from the evil dimension of EM waves struck the cell! The UV rays blasted the defenseless DNA fortress. Timmy was blasted away from Addie. "NOOOO! Don't leave me Timmy! I LOVE YOU!!" Addie, out of depression, left the DNA fortress to search for her dear Timmy. Tommy, Timmy's friend, also another thymine molecule, took Addie's place while his girlfriend, Adeline, another adenine molecule took Timmy's place. This subtle change caused the whole cell to warp and twist! The inhabitants are all screaming for mercy, with the p53 police force attempting to calm everyone down. The cell was now changed, and this caused major phenotypic changes to the organism. And this, children, is how genetic mutation occurs, which is an evolutionary process."

Jokes aside, I have no idea what the question is talking about. Dodgy

13) Let's start with the food you are eating now. Bread, is made of bread wheat. Bread wheat is cultivated through artificial selection, in which wild wheat was the precursor. Due to non-disjunction, the failure of sister chromatids to separate during anaphase of mitosis, this leads to changes in chromosomal number, wheat of special traits are born. Further non-disjunction lead to the bread wheat we have today. Next food example, did you know that broccoli, cauliflower, brussels sprouts, and cabbage, these vegetables are the SAME species? Yes, they come from the plant Brassica oleracea, in which each of the vegetable is due to the selective breeding of a trait of the plant. For instance, cauliflower-flower, cabbage-terminal buds. Dogs, cats, sheep, cows... how do you expect so many sub-species to appear? By artificial selection of desirable traits, of course. In medicine, evolutionary relationships help scientists trace the origins of certain viruses and bacteria and hence develop effective medicine to destroy them. For instance, with the molecular clock method, scientists are able to trace the origins of the HIV virus to the 1930s, based on the number of mutations. There are a lot more examples. These are all I know at the moment D:

14) History? Evolution doesn't always deal with dinosaurs or fossils. Please refer to point 13 for MODERN examples WHICH INVOLVE EXPERIMENTATION. Also, evolution does not occur instantly, unlike how sodium reacts with water, and how a ball is affected by gravity. It takes a long period of time. Physical geography is an example. How the Earth forms take a long time too. Of course there are many, many factors that can speed up evolution, like how heat speeds up a chemical reaction.

15) Angry EVOLUTION. IS. NOT. A. RELIGION. This question is really, really redundant.

And that's all. I created an account just to answer these 15 questions. Anything that helps in my biology revision Big Grin Oh if I made any factual errors, I'm very sorry. I didn't refer to materials and may have made an incorrect assumption.

Welcome to science. You're gonna like it here - Phil Plait

Have you ever tried taking a comfort blanket away from a small child? - DLJ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like robotworld's post
14-06-2011, 02:45 PM
RE: 15 questions for Atheists
(14-06-2011 06:08 AM)LeighJones Wrote:  
(13-06-2011 09:06 PM)daemonowner Wrote:  The Gnu Atheists should get together and make a kickass "15 questions for christians" pamphlet, and say that it will deconvert 47.8% of christians. Tongue

Why put work into something when we don't need to? The bible is more effective at deconverting than any pamphlet we could devise, the trick will be to guilt them into reading it.

Not really a pamphlet though... bit too long..

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use." - Galileo

"Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do." - Voltaire
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2011, 03:09 PM (This post was last modified: 15-06-2011 03:17 PM by ghostexorcist.)
RE: 15 questions for Atheists
I posted a similar thread on a history forum I frequent. Most of the members there tend to be either atheists or some type of old earth creationists that accept evolution. There are a very small handful of young earthers who distrust the scientific consensus altogether. One of them replied to my answers. Here are their comments and my replies:

Quote:[Referring to question #1] Actually it has to do with evolution. Evolution claims that living cells came from these lifeless chemicals by themselves.
Not only is there no explanation/proof as to how that happened, but it is illogical as well.

This is a common misconception I've seen repeated on this site by certain members. Evolution does not claim living cells developed from lifeless chemicals. You are confusing it with Abiogenesis, a different discipline. Evolution only explains the progression of living organisms from simple to complex through varied processes.

Speaking of Abiogenesis, even the Biblical account says God made Adam from the earth. Where do adherents of the Abrahamic religions draw the line between magic and science in this scenario? I guess it depends on if you are a Biblical Literalist or not.

Quote:[#2] Actually the question was about the DNA code.

As the pdf file mentions, the code is like the letters of the language.
"The code is a sophisticated language system with letters and words where the meaning of the words is unrelated to the chemical properties of the letters"
RNA carries a code as well. This was derived from the aforementioned amino acids and proteins. Anything beyond that and I would have to look at some sort of source.

Quote:[#4] From the pdf:
"how do minor back-and-forth variations in finch beaks explain the origin of beaks or finches?"
This question is essentially the same as number one. It is wrongly assuming that evolution has something to do with Abiogenesis (i.e. "goo-to-you" in the pdf). The beak formed from the muzzle of the bird’s dinosaur ancestors. The muzzle of the dinosaur developed because this mouth form made it best suited for the environment that it lived in.

Quote:[#7] That's too simplistic.
Well, to be more detailed, there are several theories on how this happened. The one that immediately springs to mind is that several single-celled organisms came together in a colony to become the first multi-cellular life. Does it sound any more silly than falling back on the all too simplistic “God did it” argument?

Quote:[#8] Again too simplistic. More hopeful thinking than science. I'll quote from the pdf:
"Asexual reproduction gives up to twice as much reproductive success (‘fitness’) for the same resources as sexual reproduction, so how could the latter ever gain enough advantage to be selected? And how could mere physics and chemistry invent the complementary apparatuses needed at the same time (non-intelligent processes cannot plan for future coordination of male and female organs)."

Simplistic yes, but the point comes across. You need more genetic variation the more complex you get. Even earthworms, which are very simple hermaphroditic creatures, need to mate with members of the same species.

Then again, I will admit that God creating Eve from Adam's rib does sound like asexual reproduction. But since humans are complex creatures that require genetic variation to avoid harmful mutations (that would have been brought about by thousands of years of Biblical inbreeding starting with Adam and Eve), I'll stick with the scientific explanation.

Quote:[#11] This wasn't the question.

The question is how did our mind/intelligence come from blind chemistry.
Another basic question that evolutionists CAN'T ANSWER.
This part is actually asking two different questions. I answered the part of the question that asked: “If everything evolved, and we invented God, as per evolutionary teaching, what purpose or meaning is there to human life? Should students be learning nihilism (life is meaningless) in science classes?”

Intelligence came from the ever increasing volume of the brain. As it increased over millions of years, hominids-turned-humans had the ability to perform more complex thinking strategies. There have been studies that showed the hominid brain stayed the same size for something like two million years while the body changed. After the end of this period, you see a marked increase in brain size and along with that the advent of stone tools like simple hand axes. As time progressed, these tools became more refined for certain jobs. Art was another advent of this increasing brain power. Even the great African apes are capable of producing art, making tools, and learning sign language.

Altruism and morality are not something that humans have a monopoly on. Creatures living in social societies have these. Animal behaviorists specializing in wolves to apes have noticed that all social creatures have a system of right and wrong. Whether it be body language in the face of a social superior, or a female ape pulling the weapon out of the hand of a male who is about to go off to war. Apes are known to even seal peace treaties with a kiss. Psychologists have found there are two different kinds of morality: instinctual and rational. Instinctual morality harkens back to our animal and early human past when a split second decision would mean life or death. Rational morality came after the advent of settled civilizations when people had time to formulate what their particular culture thought was good or bad (different cultures have different morals). A good example of instinctual morality is something known as a “trolley problem.” Psychologists asked volunteers a set of questions. The first question involved a hypothetical situation where five people are walking on trolley tracks unaware of a runaway trolley approaching them. The volunteer is inserted into the situation from this point. They are standing next to a rail switch, meaning they can divert the oncoming trolley. However, there is a homeless person on this side track off in the distance. They have to make the decision to save the five at the cost of the one. Ninety percent of the volunteers said it would be permissible. The second question had to do with the volunteer sitting on a bridge above the tracks. They see the trolley coming. They know the trolley can only be stopped by a large object, but the only object that is within reach is a fat man. The number of people who would throw him off the bridge to save the five dropped to ten percent. When the volunteers were asked to justify their answers, seventy percent couldn’t give a plausible reason. Why? Both instances are murder. What difference does it make? These types of split second decisions that cannot be explained rationally show that morality is not the product of civilized religious societies. It is inherent in our animal nature.

Altruism also appears in nature. A good example of this is a monkey calling out the presence of a predator at the expense of attracting attention to itself. Why do this? Because the act ensures the survival of the family group. Dawkins believes the modern form of altruism can be traced back to early human society where they lived in tight knit groups of family and friends. It was best to be nice to the people around you because you were most likely to see them again and somehow benefit from that interaction. From a modern perspective, people live in groups separated from their families, so there is no real reason to be altruistic to a complete stranger because it doesn’t benefit a person’s ability to survive or pass on his or her genes. Dawkins believes modern altruism is just an evolutionary “misfire” of this original instinct. He compares it to lust. With the advent of contraceptives (which are not modern), there was no real reason to have that overwhelming lust because the act would not produce offspring. We still have both.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-06-2011, 04:06 AM
RE: 15 questions for Atheists
shockofgod is a pitiful excuse for a human being.
He's used false threats , blocking , banning and even phishing in the past. This guy is not worthy of my attention.
His entire position is from ignorance , misrepresentation and just plain stupidity.
And his 15th question just screams hypocrisy.

Atheism is a religion like OFF is a TV channel !!!

Proud of my genetic relatives Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-06-2011, 07:01 AM
RE: 15 questions for Atheists
I've always wanted to do a skit wherein an atheist parent takes their child into the local mall at christmas to get a picture with santa, then shockofgod runs in hysterically screaming "SANTA SYNDROME! SANTA SYNDROME!!!"

Hey brother christian, with your high and mighty errand, your actions speak so loud, I can't hear a word you're saying.

"This machine kills fascists..."

"Well this machine kills commies!"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2011, 12:18 PM
RE: 15 questions for Atheists
I'll try my hand at it too! ( I love biology <3)

1. Well, we have many theories on how life originated. Some scientists believe that it was tiny fat bubbles in the ocean, which had complex organic chemicals inside of them that began replicating. However, I beg the question, what does this have to do with evolution? You realize that Abiogenis is actually not exactly a study of evolution, but an entirely different field of biology all together?

2. DNA originated from RNA. Also, there are many many complex organic and inorganic molecules and compounds, all with different patterns, you demonstrate a poor knowledge of both biology and chemistry.

3. Well, friend, you answered your own question. Mutations (adding, deleting, duplicating) are a part of evolution. Mutations occur like this, they can be bad (like inability to survive outside the womb, cancer) or they can be indifferent. Indifferent ones can sometimes be beneficiary, in which it gives the life form a slight advantage and allows them to mate and pass on those genes, in which their children have a slight advantage, mate... and well... you get the idea. Over time this leads to changes... hence evolution. Also, mutations are not the only aspect of evolution, but things like genetic drift and adaption as well.

4. Is it me, or does this seem like a repeat of question one? In that case I already answered it.

5. First off, Darwin didn't have much to do with the chemical process of cells due to lack of technology at the time, I think you are misquoting someone. Evolution occurred in a long long long span of time, so it had ample time to allow for these "accidents".

6. Sorry, but this is a retarded question. They look like they were designed?! If that's the case then your gods are terrible engineers. Why would I have a tail bone? Why would human males have oddly huge sexual organs compared to their size? Seems like mutations to me... if not, then a horribly crappy creator.

7. Well, is it easier to live in a town with people specializing in various jobs and and working together, or you living by yourself on a farm? I think some cells when separating did not go through the last process, and and found life easier to get through together, therefore living longer and passing on that mutation.

8. More genetic diversity, instead of everyone being exact copies, genes got mixed and moved around.

9. Only certain events trigger the formation of fossils, next question, please.

10. If a creature is suited to an environment, and that environment does not change enough to make that creature unsuited, then it just stays so, random mutations keep occurring, but with only random mutations evolution is much slower.

11. This doesn't really seem like an evolution question, ask you sociology professor.

12. ?! Why do we still tolerate your religious crap, that's the question to ask.

13. Lets see, vaccines, DNA testing, chemotherapy, microchips, mapping of the human genome... wow... and that's just off the top of my head.

14. Actually you can, since bacteria have a very high turnover rate you can see them mutate. In fact, ever had a cold, then had another cold the next year, mutations in action. You can observe and even test evolution. Also, why is it being taught, the same reason we research black holes, to increase human understanding.

15. Wow, I couldn't agree more, creationism... oh wait... you were talking about evolution. I'm sorry, but FAIL. Also, evolution does not equal religion... not sure where you get that idea from *cough* Praise Darwin *Cough*

[Image: 1471821-futurama_bender_s_big_score_imag...er-1-1.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-06-2011, 11:18 AM
RE: 15 questions for Atheists
Questions for evolutionists:
1) How did life originate?

This alone should be enough to uncover the complete ignorance and idiocy of the author. Evolution is not concerned with the origin of life, moron!

Most of the other questions have been answered and the author should maybe take some time in researching the subject.

The rest of the questions can be answered with "The mechanism isn't entirely clear at this time. But I'd rather admit my ignorance than make up a completely invented supernatural answer for it, thank you very much".

This is one atheist that the pamphlet did NOT convert.

English is not my first language. If you think I am being mean, ask me. It could be just a wording problem.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like sy2502's post
04-07-2011, 04:16 PM
RE: 15 questions for Atheists
I had the honour of arguing with him on Internet Radio, he is an idiot. He has no ground and claims he was an Atheist, people of this nature I condemn for spreading their ignorance.

[Image: websig.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-07-2011, 07:34 AM
RE: 15 questions for Atheists
Wasting your time. The the 10 questions should be in reverse. Kind of a hypocrite for wanting answers from us when they can't/won't answer ours. And like everyone else said in this thread, they are questions from ignorance.

"We Humans are capable of greatness." -Carl Sagan
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2012, 05:18 PM
RE: 15 questions for Atheists
My responses to these questions. The questions display an ignorance of evolution but this is not the problem. In fact, knowing what you do not know is the first prerequisite for learning, but remaining willfully ignorant and divisive on such issues without the intent on educating yourself is a big issue and problem.

1. How did life with specifications for hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?
In short, it didn’t. And even shorter, this concerns abiogenesis, not evolution. The hypothesis of abiogenesis also hypothesizes that the first “life” on Earth was most likely similar to that of a virus. That is, it was RNA life and there are certainly many questions around how it would have reproduced. Biologists are currently attempting to synthesize an RNA-lifeform in an attempt to better understand how it originated and reproduced. As for how it originated, there are several hypotheses, including; 1) the needed amino acids came from meteorites. This one is fairly popular but still presents the problem of where did the amino acids come from on the meteorites? 2) Miller and Urey’s hypothesis of the primordial soup and lightning. This is no longer as widely seen as possible given what we now know about the original ocean. They used ammonia as their nitrogen source and the nitrogen at the time would not have been ammonia. Secondly, the sporadic occurrence of lightning is probably to random to sustain enough energy for long enough periods of time to produce the energy needed to form the amino acids. 3) Origination at deep-sea hydrothermal vents. This hypothesis is gathering more and more support as we continue to learn more about the energy and nutrients coming from these vents. The ability for simple archaebacteria to survive and thrive here gives further credence to the hypothesis that the early RNA-lifeform gave way to archaebacteria that served as the ancestor to all life after it.

If nothing else, science has produced several plausible hypotheses but the ultimate answer for the origin of life is still “we don’t know.” Not knowing is not an admission of defeat, it is in fact the direct opposite. It is an admission of an issue that science is still working on. “We don’t know” means that we are looking for the answers because NO answer that currently exists for that question is entirely accurate or, in some cases, true.

2. How did the DNA code originate?
I don’t see how this question works after the previous question that makes some assumption that life already had the ability to code for proteins when it originated on the Earth. But, this question also applies to abiogenesis and not evolution, so see answer to question 1.

3. How could copying errors (mutations) create 3 billion letters of DNA instructions to change a microbe into a microbiologist?
“3 billion letters of DNA”? I am not sure that they are aware that these “letters” are arbitrary pieces of information assigned by man to identify enzymes. In any event, mutation alone does not account for all of the diversity. Mutation rates and back-mutation rates are observable and measurable though. Insertion via viruses also provides some of the diversity in the genetic code too. The most important part of genetic diversity is not the absolute number of “letters” but the possible combinations. If I have 100 legos and I add one more, I do not only add one more possible combination, I add 100. Works the same way with these “DNA letters.”

4. Why is natural selection taught as ‘evolution’ as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life?
I don’t even understand this question. Darwin’s title alone should explain this, “On the origin of species by means of natural selection.” Natural selection is the process by which evolution occurs, not the same thing. In a similar way that a pizza is cooked by an oven, but we don’t eat the oven. The oven is the process but the end-product is a result of that process, they are not equivalent.

5. How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?
As competition increases (by both shear number of organisms and the diversity of organisms) it becomes more difficult for individuals to survive and reproduce. Those that are the most efficient at gathering nutrients and at reproducing are the ones that do survive and reproduce. These new pathways provided a possibility for organisms to become more efficient and would have been selected for. As to how they originated, genetic recombination and mutation.

6. Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?
If they appear to be designed, then they appear to be very badly designed. I will concede that a watch looks designed, but we have observed its design and creation. As for organisms, I have yet to see an organism that looks designed and not evolved. So, what traits make them look designed? This type of conclusion of organisms “looking designed” is called confirmation bias.

7. How did multi-cellular life originate?
Cooperation is more beneficial to the individuals and promotes survival of the species. Cooperation is selected for and specialization within the community of organism leads to specialized cells within a multi-cellular community.

8. How did sex originate?
Sex is not necessarily what we think of as insertion and penetration at a macro scale, sex is merely the exchange of genetic information between individuals of the same species during reproduction. In this sense, genetic recombination promotes diversity which promotes survival. So, as we see in some prokaryotes and eukaryotes at the single-cell level, they can reproduce by sexually and asexually. Asexual reproduction creates a lot of clones, but sexual reproduction increases genetic diversity of the individuals involved who then asexually reproduce. This diversity is necessary for long-term survival because the environment is not static and while clones may be well-adapted to survive at their time of conception, they may be ill-suited if conditions change.

9. Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?
This question displays the obvious ignorance for how organisms become fossilized at all. <1% of all organisms that have ever lived become fossilized (a hypothetical number that is almost certainly true). The shear fact that we have any fossils is amazing, let alone that the good record we have. And what is a transitional fossil? Is it some intermediate between ancestor and descendent? If so, every fossil ever found is a transitional fossil.

10. How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years?
They don’t. And even is some cases where change is minimal, it is what we call stasis. If an organism is well-adapted to its environment and competition is minimal, then there is no force for change.

11. How did blind chemistry create mind/intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?
It didn’t. I feel like I have provided this same answer for half of these questions but once again, it is the most advantageous method for survival. Being aware of ones surroundings keeps you alive, being intelligent so as to be able to adapt is beneficial and altruism promotes survival of the species. Morality exists only within humans, in animals I would contend it is not really morality but group attitudes towards survival. Morality is a societal construct. And meaning is a pointless argument. I have no desire to find any other meaning in my life than to survive and reproduce. Name one organism (other than humans) that exists for any other reason. And even humans only say they exist for other reasons but that is not true.

12. Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated as ‘science’?
What? As if the bible is anything other than story-telling. But what about evolutionary theory is “just-so” story-telling? Documentaries like those of “walking with monsters” or “walking with dinosaurs” add stories to the facts, but research on evolution does not simply tell stories to explain it. Questions like this indicate an ignorance on the topic and examples of evolution.

13. Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?
GM crops, antibiotics, vaccines, in-vitro fertilization, modern surgery, animal breeding, studies of fetal development, genetics, etc, etc.

And, how would the absence of important breakthroughs not make it true?

14. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as the operational science?
Is this not the same question as #12? And it is not a theory about history; it is a theory behind the diversity of life and the development of life. And we can observe it, so how is it not operational science?

15. Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes?
What? How is it a belief system? It is an explanation of observations based on evidence and logic. And how does it fail to explain the evidence? This type of question perpetuates the idea of a failure to understand what evolution is.


Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: