azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

You ignore the biological processes that must occur in order for such alterations to occur. They are not explained by the above mechanisms.Such as?No, the real problem is that evolutionists fail to accept that the majority of biological systems are irreducibly complex.Yet no one has ever produced even one. The woodpecker possesses protective measures that enable it to survive drilling into trees.The woodpecker has a very small brain and a lot of gray matter. This is why it can peck with such intensity. These are not an all-or-nothing traits, that irreducible complexity requires.Both of these traits can change and adapt relative to the intensity of 'pecking'. In other words as the brain gets smaller and the gray matter tighter, the bird can peck harder. This is something which can change gradually over time. You need to give up on the woodpecker example. The more you argue this, the more you exacerbate the weakness of your argument.If scientists said that about other fields, we would not have the level of advancement that we do as a society. You profess not to need to know why it works simply because it does not work. However, no evolutionist could admit that.You need to go back and re-read what I said. I never said we don't need to know how evolution works, I never said that. What I said was that we don't need to know how specific evolutionary traits develop, to know that evolution occurs. Please contemplate the difference in meaning here.Let me phrase this another way:We don't need to how every single branch twists and turns to know that there is a tree in front of us. Do not put words in my mouth.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: creationism

Such as?The process specifically requires the development of relevant information that will enable the organism to undergo some biological change (i.e. any evolutionary metamorphosis that results in new biological structures), not a mere mutation that alters an insufficient number of traits or, worse, corrupts them.Yet no one has ever produced even one.Such systems are prolific in nature. Presumably any one that comes to mind as you read this can be labeled as irreducibly complex.These are not an all-or-nothing traits, that irreducible complexity requires.In fact, they easily establish that the developments could not have occurred. Look at the information example for the other element of irreducible complexity.This is something which can change gradually over time. You need to give up on the woodpecker example. The more you argue this, the more you exacerbate the weakness of your argument.A woodpecker would not be able to survive a greater intensity if it does not have the necessary features. It would not develop these for that simple reason. You are suggesting that it would require different food sources, and thus a different mechanism of obtaining said food. Were that true, it would be eliminated for lack of food before developing the necessary traits, or, if there was no necessity, it would not have any need for the altered capabilities.You need to go back and re-read what I said. I never said we don't need to know how evolution works, I never said that. What I said was that we don't need to know how specific evolutionary traits develop, to know that evolution occurs. Please contemplate the difference in meaning here.I am in no way suggesting that you must no how each species developed. However, it would be prudent to understand the mechanism, and, particularly, its flaws.As I have responded to your arguments and defended my own, you may want to reconsider yours.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

The process specifically requires the development of relevant information that will enable the organism to undergo some biological changeWhat the hell are you talking about? The development of relevant information? Relevant to what? An event that hasn't happened yet?I think you are needlessly muddying up the dialogue, to inject your unsubstantiated explanation. There is no relevent or irrelevent information for that matter. There is no goal to be relevent to. There is only change which succeeds and change which fails. Nor is there any limit to how small a change can be, in fact most mutations are entirely unnoticeable. Such systems are prolific in natureSo prolific that we cannot name even one.A woodpecker would not be able to survive a greater intensity if it does not have the necessary features.Thus mutation.You are suggesting that it would require different food sourcesNo, not require. They would feed on different food sources based on what is available and on what they are suited to preying upon.require different food sources, and thus a different mechanism of obtaining said food. Were that true, it would be eliminated for lack of food before developing the necessary traitsMany animals already have the basic features to use multiple methods of obtaining food. Bears for example can hunt, scavenge, fish, or forage or they may choose to specialize in any one of these methods.I am in no way suggesting that you must no how each species developed. However, it would be prudent to understand the mechanism, and, particularly, its flawsI understand well enough many of the different mechanisms of evolution (as there is more than one). I understand that you have doubts about how it works, as it is quite difficult to comprehend a non-linear process on such a large scale.As I have responded to your arguments and defended my own, you may want to reconsider yours.Perhaps you want to reconsider yours? I scarcely know what yours even is. As best I am able to surmise it is some form of Old World Creationism. You have shied away from revealing what it really is that you believe, in an attempt to protect it from criticism.As you can tell I welcome any and all criticism you can lay against evolution, I am more than capable of responding to any of your criticisms and refuting them. I have over 99% of biologists on my side.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: creationism

What the hell are you talking about? The development of relevant information? Relevant to what? An event that hasn't happened yet?In order to develop a biological structure, you must have the genetic information encoded in your DNA to do so. If that DNA has not developed, the mutation will not serve the purpose suggested by the later development.So prolific that we cannot name even one.Every organ, wings, limbs, et cetera. How about the human mind. Neuroscientists recognize our complexity in that matter. However, there is no evolutionary reason to suggest the need for such a development. Or consider our complex system of vocal communication. That would not be necessary among the primitive humans, as we have observed in other species vocalizations that enable communication (just consider canines).Thus mutation.A random mutation would not provide the solution to the problem.No, not require. They would feed on different food sources based on what is available and on what they are suited to preying upon.Then they would not have an evolutionary requirement to adapt to different forms of wood, as other sources of food would be available.as it is quite difficult to comprehend a non-linear process on such a large scale.The flaws easily demonstrate the issues associated with evolutionary theory, so it is a simple matter to comprehend how it fails.I scarcely know what yours even is. As best I am able to surmise it is some form of Old World Creationism. You have shied away from revealing what it really is that you believe, in an attempt to protect it from criticism.I assume that you would agree with me that universe is several billion years old.I have over 99% of biologists on my side.The concept of the atom was considered laughable by the scientific community at one point, as well.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

In order to develop a biological structure, you must have the genetic information encoded in your DNA to do so. If that DNA has not developed, the mutation will not serve the purpose suggested by the later development.You're thinking about this completely ass backwards. Mutation is not 'looking' for any specific genetic code, it is simply the alteration of what is already present.Every organ, wings, limbs, et cetera.Incorrect.Anything that exists or can exist in gradients cannot be irreducibly complex.Neuroscientists recognize our complexity in that matterComplexity =/= irreducible complexityHowever, there is no evolutionary reason to suggest the need for such a development.So human intelligence, thought and social behavior had nothing to do with our dominance of the planet?Or consider our complex system of vocal communication. That would not be necessary among the primitive humansThis argument is nonsense. You can pick any species at any point of history and say that it didn't (at that time) need a certain trait that it would later acquire.My response to this is: Well, Duh!That's precisely why it didn't have that trait at that time. It only acquired that trait AFTER there was a necessity for it.This argument is abhorrent to anyone who has any sense of reason or logic.A random mutation would not provide the solution to the problem.Yes it does.Then they would not have an evolutionary requirement to adapt to different forms of wood, as other sources of food would be available.Your arguments are getting more vacuous by the moment."If there wasn't a need for _______ to happen, then ______ wouldn't have happened."Which essentially boils down to "If there wasn't a cause for it to happen then it wouldn't have happened." Well of course, arguing that something happens or happened assumes as a condition of the argument itself that there is a cause.The flaws easily demonstrate the issues associated with evolutionary theory, so it is a simple matter to comprehend how it fails.Well, that's a matter of dispute, isn't it? I would say that creationism is much more riddled with logical and scientific holes. I assume that you would agree with me that universe is several billion years oldAbout 14 billion.The concept of the atom was considered laughable by the scientific community at one point, as well."But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."~Carl Sagan
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

I believe that science has shown that evolution is the most likely way to create existence. It is possible that a divine being began evolution, but I believe evolution is the correct explanation.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: creationism

It is a goal of science to pursue the truths that underly our universe. As such, it is important to consider whether evolutionary theory is correct. There are numerous issues with said theory. Consider the fact that the steps required to complete a species' evolution could never exceed the first stages. this is because the first stages would produce superfluous structures, and these would be eliminated in the next generation, as required by natural selection.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

It is a goal of science to pursue the truths that underly our universe. As such, it is important to consider whether evolutionary theory is correct. There are numerous issues with said theory. Consider the fact that the steps required to complete a species' evolution could never exceed the first stages. this is because the first stages would produce superfluous structures, and these would be eliminated in the next generation, as required by natural selection.Ignoring sexual selection, here for a minute...What makes you think the first stage cannot be functional? This is the assumption that you are making, yes? You discount it entirely without explanation. Granted, there will be 1,000 harmful, or benign mutations before there is a beneficial one, but it still happens, and it is all that is required for evolution to work.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: creationism

Evolutionary theory posits that the alterations that created each successive species occurred in stages over millions of years. The first phases in this development would not provide the function that is ultimately required (consider the development of wings). Also, taking the example of wings, such development assumes that the information necessary to construct such structures is created at some point.Mutation is the alteration of existing information, not the creation of new information.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

The first phases in this development would not provide the function that is ultimately required...based on?You've stated this elsewhere, but yet to justify this assumption.Also, taking the example of wings, such development assumes that the information necessary to construct such structures is created at some point.Wings are limbs. Notice reptiles have 4 limbs, and avians have 4 limbs. The frontal limbs simply adapted for gliding, flapping etc...The wing, most likely began as a grasping claw with long fingers, useful for clutching prey and climbing covered in feathers.Consider the following: http://images.wikia.com/dinosaurs/images/2/2f/Velociraptor_mongoliensis_jmallon.jpg Mutation is the alteration of existing information, not the creation of new information.The English language is composed of 26 letters, and in combining these letters in different ways we can create new words that didn't exist before. DNA works much the same way. It is composed of 4 base pairs arranged in a chain, and the arrangement of these base pairs in the chain can result in entirely new features.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: creationism

...based on?You've stated this elsewhere, but yet to justify this assumption.You will recognize that evolution does not occur immediately from one generation to another. If that is so, it will require several stages of development. As this does not occur rapidly, the first alterations to the organism will provide no tangible benefit. Natural selection dictates that this will be eliminated by the subsequent generations.Wings are limbs. Notice reptiles have 4 limbs, and avians have 4 limbs. The frontal limbs simply adapted for gliding, flapping etc...The differences between the limbs are quite large if one analyzes the variations in biological systems that comprise them. For what reason would a conventional dinosaur's limb begin to adapt in such a manner. Indeed, such an adaptation suggests that the information necessary to construct the wing exists, but there is no reason to believe that it would have developed.DNA works much the same way. It is composed of 4 base pairs arranged in a chain, and the arrangement of these base pairs in the chain can result in entirely new features.Random mutations will not provide the basis for evolution. It is far more common for mutations to result in a loss or corruption of information, which will not provide the necessary basis for development, unless we are to assume that all of the mutations that define every aspect of an evolution occur.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

As this does not occur rapidly, the first alterations to the organism will provide no tangible benefit.You've just re-phrased the assumption that I was disputing in the first place. This doesn't answer my question at all. Why do you assume, that it cannot provide a benefit?The differences between the limbs are quite largeThe difference between wolves and chihuahuas is quite large, but we know that Chihuahuas descended from wolves. For what reason would a conventional dinosaur's limb begin to adapt in such a mannerFeathers initially may have been useful for body insulation. Colorful feather may have been useful for mate selection. A fan-like appendage may have been useful in making one's self look bigger to scare off rivals, to block wind from offspring while in the egg, to swim, to move foliage/debris, to jump higher through flapping, to glide, and to eventually glide and any other uses that I may not have thought off.Random mutations will not provide the basis for evolution. It is far more common for mutations to result in a loss or corruption of information, which will not provide the necessary basis for development, unless we are to assume that all of the mutations that define every aspect of an evolution occur.Mutation can and has provided beneficial adaptations.http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html Most illnesses we have become immune to through mutation. For instance many Caucasians of European descent, are immune or resistant to Sickle-cell Anema, through mutation.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: creationism

You've just re-phrased the assumption that I was disputing in the first place. This doesn't answer my question at all.Why do you assume, that it cannot provide a benefit?I have stated the manner by which the principle is applied.The difference between wolves and chihuahuas is quite large, but we know that Chihuahuas descended from wolves.You will find that humans domesticated wolves and bred them for specific purposes, demonstrating a guided process different than natural selection.Feathers initially may have been useful for body insulation. Colorful feather may have been useful for mate selection. A fan-like appendage may have been useful in making one's self look bigger to scare off rivals, to block wind from offspring while in the egg, to swim, to move foliage/debris, to jump higher through flapping, to glide, and to eventually glide and any other uses that I may not have thought off.Feathers are not the only aspect that allows an organism to take flight. It requires numerous features that enable the bird to do so.Most illnesses we have become immune to through mutation. For instance many Caucasians of European descent, are immune or resistant to Sickle-cell Anema, through mutationIt can, in rare instances. However, it will not account for the complexity involved in developing from one stage to another. That would require that the sequence of mutations all complement one another or that they occur simultaneously, which would not happen.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

I have stated the manner by which the principle is applied.It is not a 'principal' it is your assumption, which you have yet to justify. For the third time, let me ask:What makes you think that the first stage, cannot be beneficial?You will find that humans domesticated wolves and bred them for specific purposes, demonstrating a guided process different than natural selection.Yes, this is called Artificial Selection. It is the same process as Natural selection, the only difference is that Humans are doing the selecting rather than Nature. Humans tend to select for phenotypical traits whereas Nature selects for both phenotypical traits and genotypical traits.It's funny to me, because in another post where I listed Artificial Selection as a mechanism of evolution, you disregarded it off-hand not really even understanding what it was that you were dismissing. This tells me you don't research anything that doesn't support your opinions or are reluctant to do so.It can, in rare instances.So then you admit you were wrong to say that mutations are always destructive?However, it will not account for the complexity involved in developing from one stage to another.What you continue to refer to as a "stage" is not so. There are no stages in evolution, because there is no goal, there is no end-product. Everything exists and survives on it's own right. In this way all species are transitional species, as they all came from something and will become something else (except the first eukaryotes and Prokaryotes). So as long as there is an accumulation of change, there will be evolution.As long as there is a change in allele frequency there will be evolution.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: creationism

It is not a 'principal' it is your assumption, which you have yet to justify. For the third time, let me ask:What makes you think that the first stage, cannot be beneficial?I have described the facts numerous times and do not intend to continue doing so.It's funny to me, because in another post where I listed Artificial Selection as a mechanism of evolution, you disregarded it off-hand not really even understanding what it was that you were dismissing. This tells me you don't research anything that doesn't support your opinions or are reluctant to do so.I have researched it and will not waste further time on scientific inaccuracies. Artificial selection is not relevant to the natural world as it incorporates a more intelligent being maintaining the breeding process.So then you admit you were wrong to say that mutations are always destructive?I never enumerated thus.What you continue to refer to as a "stage" is not so. There are no stages in evolution, because there is no goal, there is no end-product. Everything exists and survives on it's own right. In this way all species are transitional species, as they all came from something and will become something else (except the first eukaryotes and Prokaryotes). So as long as there is an accumulation of change, there will be evolution.According to evolutionary theory, there are quantifiable stages that represent the development of organisms.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

Any particular Living beings can survive only in a certain range of conditions.The earth has regions and time periods which do not meet such conditions. Thus life must of either changed in a single generation, been generated by abiogensis, been supernaturally created, or evolved to suit these new conditions. A particular animal changeing its attributes to suit a wide enough change in conditions is rare, at best it may change colors or such but rarely change enough to survive a much warmer climate for example. Abiogenisis is rare and requires conditions which seem to be long gone from the earth and unlikely to return. A supernatural creator is by definition non-existent in a natural world.We are thus left with evolution, a well supported and very observable mechanism.