Most retarded arguments against evolution

[Srelex]

I was just curious as to which arguments, either against evolution or in favor of creationism, especially stand out in stupidity. As I'm currently up to something related to the subject, I am wondering just how low such people can sink.

[The Vortex Empire]

"Evolution can't be true, because no new information can be added to a system unless there is a source of energy constantly putting more into the system!"

THE SUN GODDAMMIT.

"No transitional species have ever been found alive or in the fossil record."

Evolution is a constant process. Every species that ever lived is a "transitional species", regardless of the fact that we have plenty of fossils which appear to be a mix of two groups. For example, the classic Archeopteryx, seemingly part bird, part lizard.

[Formless]

The stupidest arguments against evolution are also not coincidentally the stupidest arguments against anything:

"I don't want to believe it, therefore it must not be true."

Or

"Read the bible."

[Serafina]

The "second law of thermodynamics"-strawman (since no one using it even remotely understand it).

[Zeuriel]

" If we evolved from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys around? Why haven't they all turned into humans? "

Then again, the Kirk Cameron-endorsed: "Bananas are perfectly shaped by god to be held and eaten as a snack"-argument probably tops everything else.

[General Soontir Fel]

"If people evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"

Which is a subset of a general line of reasoning that amounts to:

"There's this obvious flaw in the theory that anyone can notice, so all the experts are a massive conspiracy against the truth."

Also, "Fossils are arranged the way they are because of Noah's Flood."

[Junghalli]

I remember a creationist once linked me to a site that said that the human race couldn't be as old as evolution claimed because we'd have a ridiculously huge population from all those many thousands of years of growth.

BECAUSE IT'S TOTALLY PLAUSIBLE FOR STONE AGE HOMO ERECTUS TO BE ABLE TO FILL UP THE PLANET LIKE CORUSCANT. Could it be that perhaps there were limits on growth like, oh, the (in)ability of a Stone Age forager society to support a large population? Perish the thought!

My jaw dropped than anybody could actually make such an argument with a straight face.

[Serafina]

I remember a creationist once linked me to a site that said that the human race couldn't be as old as evolution claimed because we'd have a ridiculously huge population from all those many thousands of years of growth.

BECAUSE IT'S TOTALLY PLAUSIBLE FOR STONE AGE HOMO ERECTUS TO BE ABLE TO FILL UP THE PLANET LIKE CORUSCANT. Could it be that perhaps there were limits on growth like, oh, the (in)ability of a Stone Age forager society to support a large population? Perish the thought!

My jaw dropped than anybody could actually make such an argument with a straight face.

Oh, yes, that one is good.

It goes like this:
"Look at our current population growth. If that had been happening for hundreds of thousands (or millions, or whatever) of years, there would be hundreds of billions of people (or more, whatever).
But if you look at the four people after the flood and double it every thirty years, you get exactly to our population level."

Of course, humans always reproduce exponentially, regardless of avaiability of food, shelter, medication and so on

[Darth Wong]

"Evolution can't be true, because no new information can be added to a system unless there is a source of energy constantly putting more into the system!"

THE SUN GODDAMMIT.

In general, that relates to those brain-damaged "second law of thermodynamics" arguments, all of which assume a closed system in addition to horribly misinterpreting entropy. These people do not understand the concept of a closed vs open system in science: something that they literally teach in grade school.

The fact that this argument is so popular among fundamentalists, reprinted in countless forms, gussied up with elaborate language, and presented with a veneer of professionalism is what puts it to the top in my mind. It's bad enough when some trailer-trash moron makes some idiotic argument, but we're talking about an argument which they generally consider respectable and educated even after a hundred years of scientists pointing out why it's stupid and wrong.

If we're going to go with dumb-shit trailer trash arguments, I have to go with the guy who E-mailed my creationtheory.org website and asked why humans are the only primates to have opposable thumbs. Apparently, he never bothered visiting a zoo, reading a book about animals, or even Googling "ape" to see pictures which would have shown to him that other primates do have opposable thumbs.

[Formless]

I remember a creationist once linked me to a site that said that the human race couldn't be as old as evolution claimed because we'd have a ridiculously huge population from all those many thousands of years of growth.

BECAUSE IT'S TOTALLY PLAUSIBLE FOR STONE AGE HOMO ERECTUS TO BE ABLE TO FILL UP THE PLANET LIKE CORUSCANT. Could it be that perhaps there were limits on growth like, oh, the (in)ability of a Stone Age forager society to support a large population? Perish the thought!

My jaw dropped than anybody could actually make such an argument with a straight face.

Oh, yes, that one is good.

It goes like this:
"Look at our current population growth. If that had been happening for hundreds of thousands (or millions, or whatever) of years, there would be hundreds of billions of people (or more, whatever).
But if you look at the four people after the flood and double it every thirty years, you get exactly to our population level."

Of course, humans always reproduce exponentially, regardless of avaiability of food, shelter, medication and so on

Also, apparently humans never die.

:Facepalm:

[Formless]

If we're going to go with dumb-shit trailer trash arguments, I have to go with the guy who E-mailed my creationtheory.org website and asked why humans are the only primates to have opposable thumbs. Apparently, he never bothered visiting a zoo, reading a book about animals, or even Googling "ape" to see pictures which would have shown to him that other primates do have opposable thumbs.

Its worse than that: opposable thumbs are one of the defining traits of primates.

[Lord of the Abyss]

One of the stupidest I've come across - often used to defend religion in general and not just creationism - is the "you can't prove creationism* to be logically impossible; therefore, it's at least as likely as evolution!" A line of argument that usually degenerates into a defense of solipsism of their part, since it's really just a variation on "you can't really know anything outside yourself".

* Or God, or heaven, or the soul or whatever they are trying to defend. "You can't prove that it's impossible, so it must be true!"

"Evolution can't be true, because no new information can be added to a system unless there is a source of energy constantly putting more into the system!"

THE SUN GODDAMMIT.

Fundamentalist Christian Almost Discovers Sun.

"One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn't possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it."

[ray245]

A lizard couldn't understand why a light bulb can light up, so there's no way a human can give a correct reason how humanity came into existence

Yeah, that's coming from a seaonsed debater who is supposed to understand how to form a proper argument.

[Samuel]

A lizard couldn't understand why a light bulb can light up, so there's no way a human can give a correct reason how humanity came into existence

Yeah, that's coming from a seaonsed debater who is supposed to understand how to form a proper argument.

Can I hear any of your fellow debators good arguments? What you post tends to make it sound like a good number are complete idiots.

The problem with that is that it is contending that species cannot understand things they didn't create. Which is blatantly untrue.

[XaLEv]

Darwin theorized that mankind (both male and female) evolved alongside each other over millions of years, both reproducing after their own kind before the ability to physically have sex evolved. They did this through "asexuality" ("without sexual desire or activity or lacking any apparent sex or sex organs"). Each of them split in half ("Asexual organisms reproduce by fission (splitting in half)." Ask A Scientist, Biology Archive, http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/b ... o99927.htm.)

I simply expose atheistic evolution for the unscientific fairy tale that it is, and I do it with common logic. I ask questions about where the female came from for each species. Every male dog, cat, horse, elephant, giraffe, fish and bird had to have coincidentally evolved with a female alongside it (over billions of years) with fully evolved compatible reproductive parts and a desire to mate, otherwise the species couldn't keep going. Evolution has no explanation for the female for every species in creation

Imagine being there when the first dog evolved. Let's say it's the African hunting dog (Lycaon pictus), the wild canid of Africa. There was a big bang, and millions of years later an animal with a tail and four legs, a liver, heart, kidneys, lungs, blood, ears and eyes evolved (through natural speciation) into the first dog. Fortunately for him, his eyes had evolved to maturity after millions of years of blindness, so that he could see the first female dog that had evolved standing by him. It was actually very fortunate, because if the female dog hadn't evolved also and been at the right place at the right time, with the right parts and the willingness to mate, he would have been a dead dog. He needed a female to keep the species alive.

When some thinking person on an atheist blog said, "It is my understanding that the evolution of sex remains something of an unexplained mystery," there was a quick reply: "Nope. For example, the selective advantage has recently become clear: it serves to keep transposable elements from completely taking over the genome."

Let me paraphrase what our "I haven't a clue, so I will blind him with science" atheist just said: "The evolution of sex is not an unexplained mystery at all. For example the natural selecting choice for the best that evolution makes has recently become clear. It serves to keep the movable material from completely taking over the genome (a genome is a full set of chromosomes; all the inheritable traits of an organism). If you are not sure what chromosomes are, they are a threadlike linear strand of DNA and associated proteins in the nucleus of eukaryotic cells that carries the genes and functions in the transmission of hereditary information. If you are not sure what eukaryotic cells are, they comprise all of the life kingdoms except monera. Eukaryotic cells also contain many internal membrane-bound structures called organelles. These organelles such as the mitochondrion or chloroplast serve to perform metabolic functions and energy conversion.

"So that's how you can know for sure that the female dog evolved at just the right time, at the right location, at just the right age, with the exact reproducing female parts to mate and keep the species alive. Keep repeating to yourself that evolution makes sense, and that it's extremely scientific. I know that it is intellectually beyond you, but we have all the answers. Trust me."

Ray Comfort is a barrel of lols.

[Solauren]

"Where did the Egg that the chicken hatched from came from, if there wasn't any chickens yet?"

Yes, I've heard that one.

I stopped talking to the person in question after she said that.

[ray245]

A lizard couldn't understand why a light bulb can light up, so there's no way a human can give a correct reason how humanity came into existence

Yeah, that's coming from a seaonsed debater who is supposed to understand how to form a proper argument.

Can I hear any of your fellow debators good arguments? What you post tends to make it sound like a good number are complete idiots.

Good arguments regarding evolution?

The problem with that is that it is contending that species cannot understand things they didn't create. Which is blatantly untrue.

Oh, he countered that by saying humans didn't create the universe, so we won't be able to understand it.

[spaceviking]

If we're going to go with dumb-shit trailer trash arguments, I have to go with the guy who E-mailed my creationtheory.org website and asked why humans are the only primates to have opposable thumbs. Apparently, he never bothered visiting a zoo, reading a book about animals, or even Googling "ape" to see pictures which would have shown to him that other primates do have opposable thumbs.

Its worse than that: opposable thumbs are one of the defining traits of primates.

Why does it even matter if living primates have opposable thumbs? Proto humans and human like species had them. It is like arguing that hippos and whales could not be related if hippos don’t have fins.

[Formless]

If we're going to go with dumb-shit trailer trash arguments, I have to go with the guy who E-mailed my creationtheory.org website and asked why humans are the only primates to have opposable thumbs. Apparently, he never bothered visiting a zoo, reading a book about animals, or even Googling "ape" to see pictures which would have shown to him that other primates do have opposable thumbs.

Its worse than that: opposable thumbs are one of the defining traits of primates.

Why does it even matter if living primates have opposable thumbs?

It shows that he has never even read a dictionary, let alone given the subject any rational thought.

[Samuel]

Good arguments regarding evolution?

Or in general- many of the arguments you have posted have been impressively bad.

Oh, he countered that by saying humans didn't create the universe, so we won't be able to understand it.

Physics is the study and understanding of the universe. It can't get any clearer than that.

[ray245]

Good arguments regarding evolution?

Or in general- many of the arguments you have posted have been impressively bad.

For one, a fair number of them seems to think that rehashing talking points is equivalent to a debate, and seems to treat the coach's advice as gospel without making an attempt to understand the reasoning behind those advice.

Physics is the study and understanding of the universe. It can't get any clearer than that.

Well, try explaining it to a person who thinks that scientist are as domagtic as the Catholic church, and the peer-reviewed journals are essentially preventing any new ideas from coming in.

[Count Chocula]

Okay, here's one, half tongue in cheek and half request for information:

"The whole theory of evolution is predicated on one book, The Origin of Species, which studied the types of BILLS on BIRDS in the GALAPAGOS NOWHERESVILLE ISLANDS and reached conclusions about EVERY FUCKING SPECIES ON EARTH as a result?"

(hopefully) Needless to say, I know enough about insolation (occasional genetics-fucking-with flares), random DNA recombination, and plain old competition to accept evolution as a valid theory, but (and I'm asking from pure ignorance here) are there any other studies besides Darwin's work to further the theory of evolution? If so, why aren't they taught in school? I went to a Catholic high school and we learned about Darwin and Mendel, but fuck-all else about genetic drift or speciation.

[Samuel]

(hopefully) Needless to say, I know enough about insolation (occasional genetics-fucking-with flares), random DNA recombination, and plain old competition to accept evolution as a valid theory, but (and I'm asking from pure ignorance here) are there any other studies besides Darwin's work to further the theory of evolution? If so, why aren't they taught in school? I went to a Catholic high school and we learned about Darwin and Mendel, but fuck-all else about genetic drift or speciation.

Lamark and others proposed evolution before Darwin- Darwin was the first to give a mechanism (natural and sexual) and enough evidence to back up his theory. At the same time Alfred Russel Wallace was going to publish his theory of evolution. It was the same as Darwin's- Darwin had keep putting publishing of because he wanted a fool proof case and so he contacted Wallace and the published jointly.

The most obvious proof is domestication of animals, with isolated islands also being used as an example. The life on the islands are only creatures that could survive a voyage across the ocean. For examples more recent than 1859 you'd need to ask our resident biologist.

The thing is that evolution is such a major underpinning of biology that it is everywhere. For example I had a Cell Biology class in high school (just 4 years ago and already the info is out of date) and we used plasmids to manipulate bacteria to make the glowing green protein. If the plasmid contains a gene for anti-biotic resistence you can eliminate all the non-improved bacteria. This is artificial, but bacteria exchange plasmids all the time and this allows them to get access to new genes and develop resistence to drugs quickly. It is hard to see them evolve immunity, but it can be done- you get several different vials full of a single type of the same bacteria, let them grow, expose them to an anti-biotic and leave the survivors from each vial on a petri dish. The number of bacteria colonies will vary from dish to dish because the surviving bacteria lived due to random mutations. I'm pretty sure someone did this experiment to show how bacteria mutated, but I can't remember their name.

[Count Chocula]

^ Bacterial resistance to drugs seems, to me, to be a powerful confirmation of the theory of evolution. Shit, seasonal flu shots (yes yes for viral infections) are hit-or-miss.

This seems to be a better, and more recent, and better understood, underpinning to evolution as a theory. Is it taught in school nowadays?

[Formless]

^ Ah, but don't you see? That's MICRO evolution, not MACRO evolution! HA!

Probably the saddest excuse for a strawman ever constructed.

As for evidence for evolution, look no further than the fossil record. Doesn't tell you anything about the mechanisms involved, but it sure as hell tells you that its going on.