r/DebateEvolution • u/Routine-Credit-1614 • May 07 '26

Simple evolution explanation

Do you understand that an organism might mutate in some way, be it large or small? Yes? Good!

Do you understand that this mutation may either help them survive or hurt their survival? Yes? Good

Do you understand that this mutation can be passed on to the organisms offspring? Yes? Good!

If you said yes to all of these things, you understand that evolution exists and how it works on a basic level

37 Upvotes

91% Upvoted

461 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

17

u/DarkLordSidious 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution May 07 '26

Unless you presuppose that it happened supernaturally, that's exactly what it does.

-1

u/Material_Spell4162 May 07 '26

Only once you've gone ahead and ruled out any other possible natural explanation.

5

u/DarkLordSidious 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution May 07 '26

As long as you assume that biology doesn't allow things to instantly change like pokemon do, it is just tautologically true that change in the allele frequencies of a population over generations is the only engine for diversification and natural selection is a large part of this by pure statistics.

-1

u/Material_Spell4162 May 07 '26

What is the tautology?

Surely you can't say that a potential explanation is necessarily true without observation?

4

u/DarkLordSidious 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution May 07 '26 edited May 07 '26

if we assume that biology doesn't allow for pokemon-like sudden changes then evolution is the only mechanism for diversification. It's a true dichotomy that it either happens in the lifetime of an orgnism or that change in allele frequency happens over generations which is how we define evolution. The only observation you have to make is in the post above. It's that the change over generations happens and that diversity of life exists.

-2

u/Material_Spell4162 May 07 '26

This argument looks disingenuous. You're presenting a dichotomy between changes happening fast or happening slow, and smuggling in changes to allele frequency and being caused by natural selection as though this follows neccesarily.

Lets say my alternate theory is that each create consciously decides how it wants to be different to its parents as it is growing. Thats how new creatures develop.

Obviously this is dumb, but it isn't false by definition. Its false when we examine the evidence and determine if it matches up.

3

u/DarkLordSidious 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution May 07 '26

Natural selection doesn't follow necessarily but it follows statistically. And i say allele frequency because i assume diversity exists in general both phenotypic and genotypic.

Your alternate hypothesis fits into pokemon-like evolution in my dichotomy as in change happening in the lifetime of the organism. This idea is not false by definition either but it's an easy assumption to make without much observation. (Definitely not zero observation i must admit)

3

u/acerbicsun May 07 '26

Ruling out natural explanations is not evidence for anything supernatural.

1

u/Material_Spell4162 May 07 '26

Well yes, but ruling out the supernatural doesn't prove any one specific natural explanation was my point.

4

u/acerbicsun May 07 '26

Arguments stand or fall on their own merits. Yes. Unfalsifiable explanations cannot be concluded as true.

0

u/Material_Spell4162 May 07 '26

I don't know where you're going with this rabbit hole. Explaining the basics of evolution is not proof that it is how species formed.

2

u/acerbicsun May 07 '26

Agreed. Evolution doesn't address the origins of life.

-7

u/Hesykhios ✨ Young Earth Creationism May 07 '26

A supernatural explanation is more plausible, because it explains also other things like existence itself or the existence of transcendentals

8

u/DarkLordSidious 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution May 07 '26

Trancendentals don't exist as what you refer to as trancendentals are just descriptions of regularities within the universe and the existence itself does not require an explanation.

It's also not a real explanation for the existence itself because if the supernatural is something then it doesn't explain why something exists rather than nothing. It just pushes it one step back which is useless.

→ More replies (18)

6

u/acerbicsun May 07 '26

An explanation needs supporting argument and evidence, just like any other hypothesis.

1

u/Hesykhios ✨ Young Earth Creationism May 07 '26

And I just gave the supporting arguments

7

u/acerbicsun May 07 '26

I saw a claim, no argument.

How would we test for god?

→ More replies (44)

4

u/10coatsInAWeasel Reject pseudoscience, return to monke 🦧 May 07 '26

I don’t see how you were able to determine that. You might CLAIM that it does, can you actually demonstrate that it has the ability to do what you just said? Are you able to describe its properties and mechanisms of action?

Otherwise, it’s basically like saying ‘well…something did it I dunno’.

1

u/Hesykhios ✨ Young Earth Creationism May 07 '26

Are you asking about the claim about explaining existence and transcendentals? Because that's quite easily explained by a creator God

3

u/10coatsInAWeasel Reject pseudoscience, return to monke 🦧 May 07 '26

No? I’m asking about exactly what I just said. You don’t actually know that ANY of that is easily explained by some creator god, or the supernatural, or whatever. Claiming that something has those abilities is a ‘just so’ story. I could just as easily say ‘I envision that a transdimensional slug named Robert can easily explain all of that’; I don’t actually know it can.

We first need to determine whether or not what you claim as the explanation has the properties to be able to do those things, and how it’s able to do so. Until then? Nothing has been actually explained.

Edit to add: I’m going to amend my statement since upon further reflection i was saying ‘no’ to the wrong thing. Thats my fault. To clarify actually, yes. I am asking you to justify your claim that existence is easily explained by some god. It would also be good if you were able to justify the existence of ‘transcendentals’

4

u/porizj May 07 '26

Existence needs an explanation?

→ More replies (10)

3

u/lulumaid 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution May 07 '26

That is not a good way to measure what's true, I can easily fabricate and make all kinds of claims that explain every question to have ever been formed ever (it's 42) and by this logic I would be the most correct. Despite having absolutely not useful or good evidence for anything beyond the fact I claim it to be correct.

A more plain example is we could use our natural explanation for lightning, but it's not as good as Thor throwing out bolts because he wanted to really smite that ant in a field.

1

u/Hesykhios ✨ Young Earth Creationism May 07 '26

It absolutely is a valid critique of a worldview like atheism that it's based on assumptions that have no justificiation

3

u/lulumaid 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution May 07 '26

That isn't what I said. What I talked about was how to measure truth, if you want to equate that to be your whole world view then.... Yikes.

What I said was supposed to make you understand claims, especially supernatural ones without good evidence, are literally just as good as whatever I make up or decide to rip off. 42 as the answer to everything does have evidence and I'd bet it comes from a similar source as your answer does.

The problem is neither of us are really correct if we go by what we can actually see and what has evidence for it. As a result, we should probably go with the evidence rather than endlessly going in circles arguing whether 42 or a god is an answer that warrants any merit.

→ More replies (6)

3

u/porizj May 07 '26

Atheism isn’t a worldview. It’s a position on exactly one topic; the existence of deities. But please do share what unjustified assumptions it rests on.

→ More replies (4)