Dishonest Questions About Evolution

Forums: Science
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Often questions about evolution are asked by people who merely want to undermine evolutionary theory. These questions are dishonest because the person asking it is really not in search of an answer and is probably attempting to make an impression on those lacking knowledge of evolutionary biology:

Here is a partial list of such questions from various A2K threads about evolution:

Quote:

If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

Quote:

If evolution is true, why don't we see cats giving birth to dogs?

Quote:

You weren't there, so how can you know for sure that it happened?

Quote:

If the lab must be told the expected age of the sample before testing it, then why test it?

Quote:

Which of the races in the human family is the most evolved? (If you say 'none', then you obviously don't believe your own theory.)

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 4,288 • Replies: 92

No top replies

wandel, always stirring the pot eh? Very Happy

Quote:

Point out some living thing that is only "half evolved"

Anybody thatd go visit the Creation Amusement Park in Ky and expect to learn something , doesnt have a problem with dishonesty. These guys wallow in it and embrace it as part of their MO.

0 Replies

oh god...I'd never seen those questions wandeljw, thos'er gooduns. got quite a chuckle.

You weren't THERE, MAN, you don't KNOW!

0 Replies

Thanks, Chai and Farmerman!

The next time I update this list I am going to add the question quoted by farmerman.

0 Replies

One might easily choose questions asked by rather stupid people in order to provide oneself with an opportunity to seem wise when one responds to them. Nero used to get his friends to do it and so do our ministers of state. It is a very old technique and only works on the very young these days.

Has this question been asked-

Quote:

Why has evolution endowed homo sapiens with an organ he is unable to put to proper use? Neurologists have estimated than even today we are only using two or three per cent of the potential in the circuits of our brains and that's at best. It is unprecendented in evolution for a species to have such a luxurious set of redundant mechanisms which far exceed its needs and which it may never learn to use even at half power.

Perhaps you boys might answer that rather than the softball lobs you have chosen. Neurologists are scientists I believe.

0 Replies

Nah...

we'd rather just make fun of people.

0 Replies

spendi,

I have heard some neurologists theorize that if we used a high percentage of our brain capacity we would have an instant mental breakdown. Other parts of the human neurosystem would not be able to handle the brain working at a higher level.

0 Replies

Here are some more...

Quote:

If evolution is true, then why haven't scientists evolved an organism in a lab experiment?

Quote:

If evolution is true, then why is the fossil record between monkeys and humans missing?

Quote:

Which evolved first, the chicken or the egg?

0 Replies

wande wrote-

Quote:

I have heard some neurologists theorize that if we used a high percentage of our brain capacity we would have an instant mental breakdown. Other parts of the human neurosystem would not be able to handle the brain working at a higher level.

What have we evolved it for then? What is our excess brain capacity adapted to in the environment. Evolution theory does claim that successful adaptations are selected in.

That we would have an "instant mental breakdown" looks like a convenient assertion to me as does the idea that "other parts of the human neurosystem would not be able to handle the brain working at a higher level". Beliefs even.

Still- I know anti-IDers think assertions are empirical evidence. I can't do anything about that.

At least Chai is honest

0 Replies

I thought the whole partial brain usage thing was a myth, and snopes agrees with me. http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percnt.htm

0 Replies

I didn't say it wasn't. I had read of neurologists saying it wasn't.

But the link is hardly convincing. It seems primarily motivated to smear the idea by linking it to occult mongers and their ilk.

Common sense suggests that there is always room for the brain to expand its activities. Learning to play chess for a simple example. One never feels that one's brain is full and can do no more. We seem to have an endless capacity to learn new things.

The materialist theory of mind claims that thoughts and feelings are objects on the grounds that if they are not they must be immaterial entities and that would beg a very large number of questions. If we allow that they are objects involving molecules and electrical impulses it is to be expected that they have "force fields" associated with them. These may well be so faint as to be undetectable by a brain which is only operating on a small proportion of its possibilities and might allow the possibility that a brain operating on a higher capacity might be able to detect them and interpret them.

Hence the paranormal may be a future possibility and cannot be discredited on the basis of charlatans abusing the notion.

Not that I know anything about these matters. I'm only saying things I have read and seen. I just haven't closed my mind which is what the above link invites us to do and without proper justification in any scientific sense. It involves a personal belief it seems to me and its use of smear tactics is a negative factor.

0 Replies

Vengoropatubus wrote:

I thought the whole partial brain usage thing was a myth, and snopes agrees with me. http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percnt.htm

The old '10% of your brain' crap has been around since I was in elementary school. Some urban legends will never die, people just want to believe them so much.

0 Replies

ros-

Why don't you grow up and address the points I raised instead of repeating what had already been said and which you have decided upon as a schoolkid.

I don't want to believe anything.

Where do you get the arrogance to presume than people want to believe things and then to go on from the unsupported assertion to claim some sort of superiority over them based on something a third grade teacher told you?

It must be spectacularly difficult for anyone to hold an adult conversation with you.

A large number of ideas have been around since Pythagoras was in elementary school. In what way does that discredit the ideas.

You insult our intelligence everytime you put your fingers to the keys.

I can't for the life of me see the slightest significance in any aspect of your post. It's a blurt and a very ignorant one.

0 Replies

This thread is fun Wand. I'm enjoying it immensely Smile

Thanks.

0 Replies

DISHONEST QUESTIONS ABOUT EVOLUTION (Updated List):

Quote:

If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

Quote:

If evolution is true, why don't we see cats giving birth to dogs?

Quote:

You weren't there, so how can you know for sure that it happened?

Quote:

If the lab must be told the expected age of the sample before testing it, then why test it?

Quote:

Which of the races in the human family is the most evolved? (If you say 'none', then you obviously don't believe your own theory.)

Quote:

Are there animals walking around with only "half evolved" eyes or limbs?

Quote:

If evolution is true, then why haven't scientists evolved an organism in a lab experiment?

0 Replies

Quote:

Common sense suggests that there is always room for the brain to expand its activities. Learning to play chess for a simple example. One never feels that one's brain is full and can do no more. We seem to have an endless capacity to learn new things.

Seems to me like this alone is justification enough to carry around the excess capacity.

I'm completely ignorant about the origin of the 10% myth, but from what I have read about the development of the brain I understand that we actually have several times more working circuits in our brain when we are infants than we do by the time we reach adulthood. As we grow up, our brain tries out these circuits, and the ones that get "rewarded" -- that is, the ones that are rewarded by parental attention, or food, or sexual gratification, or whatever -- are reinforced and used again. Those circuits that don't prove to be useful eventually wither and die. It's a common property of what've been termed "complex adaptive systems."

It's probably one of the reasons that children are so adept at learning language, and may account for the discrepancy between potential brain usage and actual brain usage, if such a gap exists. That and fermentable grains...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_adaptive_system

0 Replies

Only an ignoramus would claim that X percent of the brain is not used while being clueless to the majority of the brain's operation.

0 Replies

The whole 10% thing was an estimate by someone back in the 1920's, when basically thay knew almost nothing about the working of the brain, and had no means of testing whether parts of it actually were doing something or not. Since then neuroscience has learned incredibly much more about the brain, and what specific parts of it do, using technology like CAT scans and MRIs. Now they can tell what parts of the brain are active when various kinds of perception/thinking/feeling are going on, and, guess what, we use 100% of our brain, not 10%. Pitiful to think that Spendius is actually operating at his full capacity, isn't it?

0 Replies

stuh wrote-

Quote:

Only an ignoramus would claim that X percent of the brain is not used while being clueless to the majority of the brain's operation.

Well- some neurologists are reported to have claimed just that. So one supposes they must be ignoramuses. Maybe we should examine who gave them their certificates of qualification. It seems a bit daft turning ignoramuses into neurologists.

As I said- I don't know. I was looking for guidance.

But-

Quote:

Only an ignoramus would claim that X percent of the brain is not used while being clueless to the majority of the brain's operation.

goes nowhere near any relevant point. If an ignoramus is defined in that way one would expect him to do just what it is said he does. It's a tautology.

What does "clueless" mean and what does "majority" mean. And how much scientific research has been done on the subject?

It's not an irreducible complexity by any chance is it?

0 Replies

No, it's reducible complexity. That's what the last thirty years or so of research have done.

0 Replies

Dishonest Questions About Evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know