Arguments theists might use but don't
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-07-2011, 11:38 PM (This post was last modified: 25-07-2011 11:52 PM by angry_liberal.)
RE: Arguments theists might use but don't
(25-07-2011 07:29 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  I would think an intellectual question to denounce "Darwinism" would be to ask if when a species separates the two branches divide and create diverse life, then why are all the humans able to procreate with each other? There are some places with some interesting mutations from three legs to growing a penis at puberty, but still every human is capable of mating with all the rest. Why didn't some sort of genetic barrier happen?
Sorry I missed this. Oh the question of speciation is interesting but not really a starter for any sort of attack on evolution although I think it has been tried.

For a start unusual new mutations are in themselves not enough for a new species to form. Even if the mutation is a beneficial mutation the most it can do is become established in the breeding population.

What you need for a new species to emerge is a barrier to sexual reproduction. Usually this is geographical but humans are past that possibility now. Ironically it seems to me the main barrier to reproduction in the modern times is actually religion. But even that barrier is not that high. I understand that a consensus is forming that the human species is now too large, and has too much churn for any sort of speciation to get a hold in us. I wonder however what will happen if we ever send colonists into space. They may be gone long enough to form new species.

There are many examples of speciation in action in animals. My favourite are a sort of gull that leaves in a circle around the North Pole. The species gradually change as you go round the circle and can happily interbreed at every stage except for the UK. In the UK the two ends of the circle join up and are so different that they are recognized as two species.

The moral of this is that for a theist to come up with a worthy argument in favour of God he probably has to accept the conclusions of science at least the big ones otherwise they are going to get caught out quickly.
(25-07-2011 04:16 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I can honestly not think of any rational arguments that do not require bending of the universes laws or apologist acrobatics. I once heard creationists try to use the arguments of DNA transcription and simple machines reproducing. The argument for DNA transcription was from a "scientist" who said it works just like an "assembly-line" and is perfect every time, therefore it had to be designed. This is easily refutable however by using evidence and rational thought so it does not qualify as a good argument. The simple machine one was even better. An engineer called into the radio show I was listening to (the same show I heard the "scientist" on. I was in the middle of VA hell and had nothing else to listen to). His example was that he has never seen a simple machine (like an inclined plane) reproduce itself so life had to have been created. Once again, this is an illogical argument that completely disregards all higher thought processes.

Yeah I don't really count intelligent design arguments as worthy opponents. They have a tendency to sound very plausible but also follow an intellectual sleight of hand technique. They keep you interested long enough so that they can change the meaning of a word without you noticing. This one is appalling and worse even that that.

DNA is not perfect everytime and nor is any assembly line. Both have easily measurable failure rates. Assembly lines often have workers whose job is to measure the failure rate and other people whose job is to reject articles that are too low in quality. Cells also often have components whose job is to correct mistakes. Bacteria that are especially good at surviving radiation work like that.

The other problem is that seeing an intricate machine is not in itself evidence of design. So called "designed" life on earth is full of design flaws that point to an evolutionary past. Now if we could get our paws on some alien technology then we would have an interesting time working out whether it was designed or evolved. Big Grin
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2011, 04:37 AM (This post was last modified: 26-07-2011 04:44 AM by Lilith Pride.)
RE: Arguments theists might use but don't
What I mean by the speciation is that many groups of humans were cut off for thousands of years, but none of them changed enough to become a new species. Even with some odd local mutations taking root in a few groups the amount of time that they were separated didn't alter things. When the early humans traveled from Africa all over the world they all ended up the same with only minor variances despite a huge divide. There were a few examples of alternate types of homonids being found as they moved, but all the living varieties are a variation of homo sapiens sapien. Is it our specific nature within group dynamics that makes it dangerous to be a drastic mutation that kept it low?

The idea that this is a good question for a theist to ask is because if separation is what's necessary for a species to diverge then there is no real reason for all humans to have maintained so many similarities. Even in Australia where most every mammals were born from marsupials instead of eutherians. The aboriginals are still capable of sexual reproduction with westerners who invaded the area. There was more than enough time of isolation for the species to diverge, but it never happened.

This would be a good argument for some sort of guide to humanity forcing them to exist in a specific state.

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2011, 11:55 AM
RE: Arguments theists might use but don't
(26-07-2011 04:37 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  What I mean by the speciation is that many groups of humans were cut off for thousands of years, but none of them changed enough to become a new species. Even with some odd local mutations taking root in a few groups the amount of time that they were separated didn't alter things. When the early humans traveled from Africa all over the world they all ended up the same with only minor variances despite a huge divide. There were a few examples of alternate types of homonids being found as they moved, but all the living varieties are a variation of homo sapiens sapien. Is it our specific nature within group dynamics that makes it dangerous to be a drastic mutation that kept it low?

The idea that this is a good question for a theist to ask is because if separation is what's necessary for a species to diverge then there is no real reason for all humans to have maintained so many similarities. Even in Australia where most every mammals were born from marsupials instead of eutherians. The aboriginals are still capable of sexual reproduction with westerners who invaded the area. There was more than enough time of isolation for the species to diverge, but it never happened.

This would be a good argument for some sort of guide to humanity forcing them to exist in a specific state.

Yes that it is a good question. From what I know there has not been any obvious growth in a genetic sexual barrier within our species. Note that even lions and tigers are considered separate species because of their lifestyle differences and yet have no genetic incompatibility at all. We are a young species.

However it is certainly very surprising to the naive intuition. I attempted to read some Voltaire the other day. He was talking about different "Races" of Humans. I had the strong impression that he meant the word in the way we uses "species" but I am really not sure.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: