Fun talk:Scientific evidence of evolution being a hoax

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>


That is all.

Craig said it best[edit] — Unsigned, by: Debunking Atheists / talk / contribs

Craig should have kept his mouth shut and let us think him a fool, rather than speaking up and removing all doubt. — Unsigned, by: Maurog / talk / contribs


1.- If evolution is such a normal path for every specie, why are humans the only specie that has developed advanced intelligence ? Shouldn't it had been a path that more than one specie should have taken - every specie in various levels perhaps, but at least show traits of a more advance intelligence than our closest "evolutionary relative" the ape? (Advance intelligence: creation and use of tools, clothing, advanced shelter with doors/roofs/walls, abstract thinking, mathematics, harvesting, language, writing... heck, even something essential as igniting a fire). No other species does this.

2.- Following the 1st premise above, if humans (the homo species - erectus/habilis/sapien) have only been in the earth as such for tenths of thousands of years and developed advanced intelligence and skills... shouldn't have dinosaurs (ANY SPECIES) developed a (at least) similar set of skills and intelligence in the millions of years the roamed the Earth? Considering of course that evolution is an equation that affects all species in the same way, through a process of adaptation and survival of the fittest. Dinosaurs lived in same or even tougher conditions in the earliest stages of earth. Shouldn't have evolution (as a constant) pushed their brains to develop further and be able to at least harvest their own food or develop tools? They had millions of years to do so. We, humans, have had thousands.

3.- Archeologist find bones form ancient human societies by the hundreds: rests of Neanderthal tribes, Cro-Magnon tribes, ancient homo sapien civilizations, etc. Not only that, but we also find bones and fossils of far extinct species such as mammoths, dinosaurs and pre-dinosaurs species dating back to the earths beginnings. This begin a common find, if the evolution of man - from ape to human- was such an irrevocable truth, where are the missing links of this evolution process? There should be several: tenths, hundreds perhaps. But yet we cant find them in enough numbers to disproof any other possibility.

Note from the author: The author of these comments is not a creationism fundamentalist or a complete skeptic of the evolution theory as a whole. In fact, the evolution of species in the small processes of adaptation to the environment for survival purposes is evident by scientific genetic testing and observation. It's just that many of this things still have a lot of "loose ends" or simply "dont make a whole lot of sense". It would be a flaw to accept the whole evolution theory as the inmutable truth just because it's the most viable hypothesis so far, disregarding these unanswered questions and shielding our minds in a numb "pseudo-science fundamentalism" without full proof. Evolutionism has been accepted by modern society as the only answer, stigmatizing the remaining theories as plain "stupidity" or "absurdity". The earth was flat until a few hundreds of years ago according to the accepted general knowledge, so dont think you are smart because you back up the status quo. — Unsigned, by: Metaman / talk / contribs 11:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks to me like some of the same Creationist claptrap. Let's look at this point by point:
1.-The problem with this is it's a matter or odds. What were the odds from the get-go that the evolution of an advanced intelligence? Given that evolution is a random process, the odds are slim to start with. As for showing more intelligence, this already occurs in the various brains of animals. A turtle's brain, for example, is less advanced than a dog's brain. This is why you can teach tricks to a dog far easier than you can to a turtle.
2.- Dinosaurs were not around longer than humans have been. Yes, they were around longer ago than humans, but not for as long as our lineage has been. And, once again, it takes quite a bit of chance and need for a species to develop an advanced brain. You don't just develop an advanced brain for no reason. For dinosaurs, they had no use for an advanced brain when sharper teeth, for example, was the preferred trait. The greater apes, on the other hand, have always been known to use various tools and, thus, need a more advanced brain to know how to use them.
3.-The answer to your 3rd point is actually found in our genetic code. While we can't find the "missing link" in the fossil record (the reason for which is simple: have you ever looked for fossils and ruins? They are harder to find than you think), it is very much in our genetic code.
Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 11:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Cranial size (which is a proxy for "intelligence" of a species) is usually a case of it taking off rapidly once it's there. Intelligence is simply that good an adaptation, but it's a difficult hurdle to get over because until it's sufficiently evolved it's more a drain than anything else. But it would also be a mistake to ever think evolution must lead to properties X, Y and Z given enough time. T-Rex walked upright, had big snappy jaws and short arms, why haven't we developed big snappy jaws and short arms given our time? That would be effectively the same argument as using intelligence. Scarlet A.pngpatheticModerator 16:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Evolution isn't a "random process"; it's a process of adaptation to survive through natural selection. Human intelligence is one outcome of that process, but there's no reason for it to be the end goal of every species, since they have all adapted to survive in their own way within their own environment. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Latest from an IP[edit]

From an IP. Anyone able to refute this incoherent bafflegab?

First of all, evolution is a theory that is to be proven out by those that advocate it. It is not incumbent upon the skeptics to prove that is isnt factual.
The theory of evolution is the persistent progressional change of all life forms in which small variances from one generation to the next unconsciously conspire to evolve itself to better suit the conditions presented to the species.
Thus, all species are in a transitional state that never rests into perpetuity. That being said it should be odd that ANY fossils of the same species would be alike in manner within the vast fossil record considering how infrequent a perspective fossil would find itself the beneficiary of the unlikely matter of events that takes a such snapshot in time. But the contrary is true in as much that all species within the fossil record appear suddenly without previous representation and just as suddenly disappear void of any transitional manifestations or advantageous improvements that evolution relies upon.
Scientists can only point to two representative fossils and draw an unscientific unproven conclusion that one evolved into the other. In fact there are innumerable examples of this. But, the one thing that doesn't exist in all of creation and the vast fossil record *IS THE FOSSIL IN BETWEEN THOSE TWO*!!!! Likenesses or similarities between species doesnt suggest evolution but instead suggests a common creator using likewise body structures and bio systems. Commonalities in design are the product of a common designer. Thus, when one finds two similar examples of an animal it is meaningless. The only thing that gives evolution credible legs to stand on is a succession of fossils that demonstrate an evolutionary timeline. NOTHING like this exists in the least in the fossil record. Of all of the millions of species not one single example can be shown of multiple succeding fossils.
Scientist stick to the world of unfamiliar and vague species to hang their hat on in the evolution lie. Why? Because its easier to make a sales pitch using scientific vernacular and long extinct reptiles and shellfish than it is to work in the realm of the understandable and familiar. In short, there are no "almost" elephants. No "almost giraffes". For evolution to be true one should find innumerable giraffes of varying stages of evolution. It should be rare that two are the same. Yet all are the same. there are no exceptions. Period. Again, the scientists ply their trade utilizing the vague and plausible and unfamiliar species to hoodwink everyone.
The only thing that can be gleaned from the fossil record are implied or coincidental similarities that fall radically short of a hundred million year progression of successively improved archetypes within the same species line. If evolution were valid the entire fossil record would consist of almost entirely different and varied subsequent species over the eons. Exactly the opposite is true, and that is the entire fossil record is static and unvaried. The fact is, you can go out and dig up some saber tooth tiger bones and they will be exactly like all those dug up before.

- David Gerard (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the "no transitional forms" argument. Evil fascistoh noez 19:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Quite honestly it's so ill-informed as to be not worth the effort. The best advice is to go and read ’Why Evolution is True and then come back and argue. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 20:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
You could present things like WEIT and GSOE or even Origin, as a clear counterargument to the above, but the response would almost certainly be "First of all, evolution is a theory that is to be proven out by those that advocate it. It is not incumbent upon the skeptics to prove that is isnt factual. The theory of evolution is the persistent progressional change of..." Scarlet A.pngmoralModerator 17:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
For the record, giraffe and elephant evolution were covered in the respective episodes of Inside Nature's Giants. Scarlet A.pngpatheticModerator 17:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I really should do another documentry binge. Evil fascistoh noez 17:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Ironic that a Channel 4 production from the UK would be blocked in the UK by National Geographic... anyway, this link may work for you. Scarlet A.pngpostateModerator 17:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Okay, maybe not ironic. Scarlet A.pngpostateModerator 17:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
It works. Adding to "list of things to do this weekend" Evil fascistoh noez 17:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── FYI, I think this page got attention because it was featured on r/atheism yesterday. Comments were of the "I see what you did there" variety. -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Addressing DG's original question, the evidence from genetics for evolution is so strong that it doesn't rely on the fossil record. However, the consilience of genetics and palaeontology means that you need to be several sandwiches short of a picnic to argue otherwise. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 18:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
And embryology. In fact, you can demonstrate evolution without going into genetics or fossils. Scarlet A.pngtheistModerator 00:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: Rename[edit]

The title is weird grammar. "Scientific evidence that evolution is a hoax" is much better. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 19:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)