Author Topic: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)  (Read 9538 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2647
  • Darwins +52/-435
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
I do believe that. They are still dogs, cats, and flys though. I already made this point. Fruit fly speciation just produces different fruit flys. They don't produce anything else. This does not explain how species that are not fruit flys end up forming.

Fruit flies, house flies, and mosquitoes, are all flies.  Quite a bit of difference there, wouldn't you say?

Mosquitoes were formed from fruit flys? That would be an example that proves macroevolution.

nobody has yet to explain how mosquitos became mosquitos and how fruit flys became fruit flys.

It's simple if you believe in God....not so much when you don't.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline MadBunny

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3572
  • Darwins +113/-0
  • Fallen Illuminatus
There isn't really a body of evidence for abiogenesis the way there is for evolution.
Abiogenesis is more properly a hypothesis rather than a theory like evolution.

We know that. That's why it can't be considered science yet.
It belongs in the religious category.

If nobody knows how life started, you can't rule out God.

It seems that you're unfamiliar with what the word hypothesis means.  This doesn't overly surprise me given that you've chosen to also ignore what the word evolution means.

You should probably be aware that once a hypothesis is formed the next step is to test that hypothesis. 
That a topic is a hypothesis does not automatically put in a religious category, rather it's impossible for a religion to get past the hypothesis stage since it appears to be impossible to actually test for the presence of god, whereas one CAN test for things like protein strands and how they react to specific stimuli.

Feel free to 'rule in' god as soon as you can come up with a way of proving that it exists.

What you don't seem to understand is that simply complaining about parts of a theory that you don't like does nothing to advance your own ideas.  If you don't like the idea of evolution.. that's ok.  Heck even if you could, against the overwhelming mountain of evidence in it's favor find a way to show that it doesn't actually work the way we think it does, that still wouldn't advance your ideas as a replacement.

What you need to do is advance your own ideas and back them with solid research and facts.  Religion can't do that where deities are concerned. 

By the way, you haven't actually managed to even meet the fairly simple challenge proposed by the OP post yet.
Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night.  Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Online skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2647
  • Darwins +52/-435
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Just not in any way you can demonstrate. Saying it is so doesn't make it so. You need to demonstrate your claims. Otherwise there is simply no reason to accept your claims. You just have delusion like all other religions.

I see. So you can demonstrate abiogenesis without resorting to circular reasoning? (ie. Life is here, so abiogenesis must have happened)
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins

I have fulfilled the obligations. I guess me using a definition that was given by the university of berkeley is not good enough. Then, I must assume that you guys have a different definition of evolution, and disagree with the professors at berkeley.

Now you're just being an ass about the OP b/c you don't want to do the homework to fulfill requirement #1. And I gave you a YouTube channel of a Christian who can help you with this fulfillment. Go there and then come back and report what exactly evolution is and what it's evidences are (from a Christian source!). GO!
« Last Edit: November 05, 2013, 12:17:51 AM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4615
  • Darwins +105/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
What is a mosquito's purpose? For God to create it,spread disease,to kill heathens and believers alike? You could say coyotes had a purpose,wolves,until man got in their way,but mosquito's .....no purpose
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Just not in any way you can demonstrate. Saying it is so doesn't make it so. You need to demonstrate your claims. Otherwise there is simply no reason to accept your claims. You just have delusion like all other religions.

I see. So you can demonstrate abiogenesis without resorting to circular reasoning? (ie. Life is here, so abiogenesis must have happened)

Since when did I make a positive statement regrading the origin of life? Have you seen me do that? NOPE! Unlike you, I don't pretend to know things I don't know. It's called admitting when you don't have the facts in (which for some odd reason you seem unwilling to do). Sorry, the argument from ignorance fallacy still fails - regardless of how many times you want to try it.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Online skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2647
  • Darwins +52/-435
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched

I have fulfilled the obligations. I guess me using a definition that was given by the university of berkeley is not good enough. Then, I must assume that you guys have a different definition of evolution, and disagree with the professors at berkeley.


Now you're just being an ass about the OP b/c you don't want to do the homework to fulfill requirement #1. And I gave you a YouTube channel of a Christian who can help you with this fulfillment. Go there and then come back and report what exactly evolution is and what it's evidences are (from a Christian source!). GO!

OK fine. I will use the wikipedia definition:

"Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations."

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

if that definition is wrong, please feel free to edit the wikipedia page. Lots of people have been duped.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12291
  • Darwins +274/-31
  • Gender: Male
Mosquitoes were formed from fruit flys? That would be an example that proves macroevolution.

They are descended from common stock.  Just like you wouldn't expect a poodle to have come from a bull mastiff, but instead that they come from common stock.  They are all dogs, just as the insects I mentioned are all flies.

Why are you deliberately trying not to understand what people say?

nobody has yet to explain how mosquitos became mosquitos and how fruit flys became fruit flys.

Common ancestor.  Easy explantion, and makes sense in light of their common traits.

It's simple if you believe in God....not so much when you don't.

Explaining why my car engine pulses wierdly would be far simpler if I just concluded "God makes it do that".  I wonder why my Christian mechanic doesn't do that...
« Last Edit: November 05, 2013, 12:23:04 AM by Azdgari »
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Antidote

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 484
  • Darwins +19/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • >.>
Mosquitoes were formed from fruit flys? That would be an example that proves macroevolution.
That is one of the biggest, most obvious strawmen I've seen in a while, he was giving examples of FLIES, not Fruit Flies.
According to Cpt. Obvious: Theists think they know God, Atheists require evidence.

---

Do not assume I was religious in any way, I have never been religious.

Online skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2647
  • Darwins +52/-435
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
What is a mosquito's purpose? For God to create it,spread disease,to kill heathens and believers alike? You could say coyotes had a purpose,wolves,until man got in their way,but mosquito's .....no purpose

That does not answer the question.

Sounds like reductio ad absurdum logical fallacy to me.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12291
  • Darwins +274/-31
  • Gender: Male
Mosquitoes were formed from fruit flys? That would be an example that proves macroevolution.
That is one of the biggest, most obvious strawmen I've seen in a while, he was giving examples of FLIES, not Fruit Flies.

Indeed.  Honesty is a sin within Skeptic's brand of Christianity.  Fortunately, not all Christians follow his example; some have integrity.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4615
  • Darwins +105/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
What is a mosquito's purpose? For God to create it,spread disease,to kill heathens and believers alike? You could say coyotes had a purpose,wolves,until man got in their way,but mosquito's .....no purpose

That does not answer the question.

Sounds like reductio ad absurdum logical fallacy to me.
No I was asking you its purpose
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline Antidote

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 484
  • Darwins +19/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • >.>
What is a mosquito's purpose? For God to create it,spread disease,to kill heathens and believers alike? You could say coyotes had a purpose,wolves,until man got in their way,but mosquito's .....no purpose

That does not answer the question.

Sounds like reductio ad absurdum logical fallacy to me.
That was kind of the point, by your logic every creature has a purpose, what is a mosquitoes purpose?
According to Cpt. Obvious: Theists think they know God, Atheists require evidence.

---

Do not assume I was religious in any way, I have never been religious.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins

OK fine. I will use the wikipedia definition:

"Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations."

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

if that definition is wrong, please feel free to edit the wikipedia page. Lots of people have been duped.

Go read the OP again, b/c you STILL are refusing to meet it's challenge in full and I've provided a method for you to do that. Go visit the YouTube link here:

http://www.youtube.com/user/DonExodus2

Educate yourself (which is part of the requirement of the OP) and only THEN, meet the challenge.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Online skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2647
  • Darwins +52/-435
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched

Since when did I make a positive statement regrading the origin of life? Have you seen me do that? NOPE!
Unlike you, I don't pretend to know things I don't know. It's called admitting when you don't have the facts in (which for some odd reason you seem unwilling to do). Sorry, the argument from ignorance fallacy still fails - regardless of how many times you want to try it.

You did make a positive statement about it, median. You don't believe in God. This means you don't think God created life. Yet, you haven't shown how life even formed in the first place. So, it's illogical to say "I don't know" but at the same time say, "It's not God."

Imagine I take you to a building with no windows and a locked door. I ask, "What's behind the door?" You say, "I have no idea." This would be reasonable and understandable. To say, "I have no idea what's behind the door, but it's definitely not a cat," is illogical.

How would you know that it's not a cat behind the door?
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline Antidote

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 484
  • Darwins +19/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • >.>

Since when did I make a positive statement regrading the origin of life? Have you seen me do that? NOPE!
Unlike you, I don't pretend to know things I don't know. It's called admitting when you don't have the facts in (which for some odd reason you seem unwilling to do). Sorry, the argument from ignorance fallacy still fails - regardless of how many times you want to try it.

You did make a positive statement about it, median. You don't believe in God. This means you don't think God created life. Yet, you haven't shown how life even formed in the first place. So, it's illogical to say "I don't know" but at the same time say, "It's not God."

Imagine I take you to a building with no windows and a locked door. I ask, "What's behind the door?" You say, "I have no idea." This would be reasonable and understandable. To say, "I have no idea what's behind the door, but it's definitely not a cat," is illogical.

How would you know that it's not a cat behind the door?
This is a big non-sequitar, what does his non-belief in deities have to do with the price of tea in china?

EDIT:
On top of that occam's razor is to blame for cutting out your god, not median. Asserting a complex being as the "simple" explanation explains absolutely nothing and only begs the question, "where did god come from?", and "what created god?" ad-infinitum
« Last Edit: November 05, 2013, 12:29:55 AM by Antidote »
According to Cpt. Obvious: Theists think they know God, Atheists require evidence.

---

Do not assume I was religious in any way, I have never been religious.

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12291
  • Darwins +274/-31
  • Gender: Male
Skep, when someone asks a question or makes a point about your views or your position, it's not immediately relevant what their views or their position is.  It might be something worth talking about in the broader discussion, but it doesn't address what's actually being said.

You do this a lot, and it reflects poorly on your point of view.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins

You did make a positive statement about it, median. You don't believe in God. This means you don't think God created life. Yet, you haven't shown how life even formed in the first place. So, it's illogical to say "I don't know" but at the same time say, "It's not God."

Imagine I take you to a building with no windows and a locked door. I ask, "What's behind the door?" You say, "I have no idea." This would be reasonable and understandable. To say, "I have no idea what's behind the door, but it's definitely not a cat," is illogical.

How would you know that it's not a cat behind the door?

Bearing false witness is a sin in your religion, isn't it? You are committing it right now. By deliberately misrepresenting my position you are effectively LYING about what I have stated!!!!!! I made NO positive statement about a God or the origin of life and I did NOT say, "It's not God" (just like I did NOT say, "It's not Unicorns!"). You made the positive statement that it is and we are asking you to defend that position. I find your tactics extremely dishonest as you make no attempt to actually understand my position and (like always) just ASSUME. You are a pure asshole for trying to put words in my mouth (and a complete hypocrite all the way around). I do not, and have not, pretended (like you) to know exactly how life got here. I've simply said we do not know (including you). STOP MISREPRESENTING MY POSITION.


Just because you are gullible doesn't mean others around you are by default.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2013, 12:33:15 AM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline MadBunny

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3572
  • Darwins +113/-0
  • Fallen Illuminatus
Just not in any way you can demonstrate. Saying it is so doesn't make it so. You need to demonstrate your claims. Otherwise there is simply no reason to accept your claims. You just have delusion like all other religions.


I've been out of the loop for a while, is it actually possible that nobody has covered the concept of falsifiability with him?
Abiogenesis can be falsified, 'god' cannot.


Here is a quick little page, with a nice primer on how it works.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/


Quote
.... For Popper, a theory is scientific only if it is refutable by a conceivable event. Every genuine test of a scientific theory, then, is logically an attempt to refute or to falsify it, and one genuine counter-instance falsifies the whole theory. In a critical sense, Popper's theory of demarcation is based upon his perception of the logical asymmetry which holds between verification and falsification: it is logically impossible to conclusively verify a universal proposition by reference to experience (as Hume saw clearly), but a single counter-instance conclusively falsifies the corresponding universal law. In a word, an exception, far from ‘proving’ a rule, conclusively refutes it....

...Thus Popper stresses that it should not be inferred from the fact that a theory has withstood the most rigorous testing, for however long a period of time, that it has been verified; rather we should recognize that such a theory has received a high measure of corroboration. and may be provisionally retained as the best available theory until it is finally falsified (if indeed it is ever falsified), and/or is superseded by a better theory.

In the simplest of terms: science is rigorously trying to constantly prove itself wrong.  When it does, the existing theory is modified in favor of the new knowledge.  Religion, almost by definition cannot do this.


Where abiogenesis is concerned, we can come up with a hypothesis and test it.  (did it work: Yes/No.  What did we learn?)
Where 'god' is concerned we can't do this.



Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night.  Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4935
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
#32.

Long time ago.
And as I said at the time, you are nitpicking.

Splitting hairs by trying to create a totally artificial distinction between 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution', and then trying to claim that science supports the former and not the latter, is not reasonable.  It is nothing more than an attempt to cast doubt on the affair so you can present your beliefs as an alternative without providing evidence for them.

You also never bothered addressing my point about the implications of speciation.  Specifically, how the divergence in a single species which that causes it to become separate species carries implications for the past development of existing species, and so on and so forth.

Evolution isn't about mosquitoes forming from fruit flies.  It's about both mosquitoes and fruit flies having diverged from their predecessor species, which diverged from their predecessor species, and so on.  It isn't about making a silk purse from a sow's ear, which is how you seem to be looking at it.

The species that would ultimately produce mosquitoes and fruit flies diverged a long time back - their closest relationship is the order Diptera.  What that actually means is that Diptera was a single population once, and it diverged into different species which had different traits.  Ultimately, through continued divergences, they became what we know of as fruit flies and mosquitoes.  But the point is, they're both Diptera - winged insects, and they both diverged off of that ancestor species.

You can trace speciation backwards as well as forward; pretending otherwise is dishonest.

Online skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2647
  • Darwins +52/-435
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
#32.

Long time ago.
And as I said at the time, you are nitpicking.

Splitting hairs by trying to create a totally artificial distinction between 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution', and then trying to claim that science supports the former and not the latter, is not reasonable.  It is nothing more than an attempt to cast doubt on the affair so you can present your beliefs as an alternative without providing evidence for them.

You also never bothered addressing my point about the implications of speciation.  Specifically, how the divergence in a single species which that causes it to become separate species carries implications for the past development of existing species, and so on and so forth.

Evolution isn't about mosquitoes forming from fruit flies.  It's about both mosquitoes and fruit flies having diverged from their predecessor species, which diverged from their predecessor species, and so on.  It isn't about making a silk purse from a sow's ear, which is how you seem to be looking at it.

The species that would ultimately produce mosquitoes and fruit flies diverged a long time back - their closest relationship is the order Diptera.  What that actually means is that Diptera was a single population once, and it diverged into different species which had different traits.  Ultimately, through continued divergences, they became what we know of as fruit flies and mosquitoes.  But the point is, they're both Diptera - winged insects, and they both diverged off of that ancestor species.

You can trace speciation backwards as well as forward; pretending otherwise is dishonest.

I see.

So mosquitos and fruit flies have a common ancestor.
So how did other forms of life form?
Never get an elephant from mosquitos and fruit flies.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Online skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2647
  • Darwins +52/-435
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched

You did make a positive statement about it, median. You don't believe in God. This means you don't think God created life. Yet, you haven't shown how life even formed in the first place. So, it's illogical to say "I don't know" but at the same time say, "It's not God."

Imagine I take you to a building with no windows and a locked door. I ask, "What's behind the door?" You say, "I have no idea." This would be reasonable and understandable. To say, "I have no idea what's behind the door, but it's definitely not a cat," is illogical.

How would you know that it's not a cat behind the door?

Bearing false witness is a sin in your religion, isn't it? You are committing it right now. By deliberately misrepresenting my position you are effectively LYING about what I have stated!!!!!! I made NO positive statement about a God or the origin of life and I did NOT say, "It's not God" (just like I did NOT say, "It's not Unicorns!"). You made the positive statement that it is and we are asking you to defend that position. I find your tactics extremely dishonest as you make no attempt to actually understand my position and (like always) just ASSUME. You are a pure asshole for trying to put words in my mouth (and a complete hypocrite all the way around). I do not, and have not, pretended (like you) to know exactly how life got here. I've simply said we do not know (including you). STOP MISREPRESENTING MY POSITION.


Just because you are gullible doesn't mean others around you are by default.

So to make a long story short, you believe that it is certainly possible that God could have created life?
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Online skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2647
  • Darwins +52/-435
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
That was kind of the point, by your logic every creature has a purpose, what is a mosquitoes purpose?

I'm not sure. Plenty of people believe that flies and mosquitos were created by Satan via gene splicing. This is certainly one possibility. Nasty creatures. Doesn't seem like something God would create.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline Deus ex Machina

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3029
  • Darwins +23/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • non-cdesign-proponentsist
If you think "macroevolution" entails the descendants of dogs one day being something other than dogs, then your notion of "macroevolution" isn't anything to do with evolution at all. They can no more not be dogs, than can any descendants you may have not have you as an ancestor. You would not say "prove to me that 2 = 9, or I will not accept mathematics", would you?

Yes, that's the problem with evolution. Dogs will always have dog descendants. This would mean other species would not be able to form.

They already have! What you you think domesticated dogs, jackals, coyotes, dingoes and wolves are? They are all dogs ("dogs" are not a single species); but they're not all the same species, are they? Similarly, cougars, panthers, jaguars, lions, tigers, ocelots, lynxes, leopards, cheetahs, snow leopards, wildcats, sand cats and "domesticated" cats are all cats - but they are clearly not one species either.

"All descendants of dogs are dogs" and "all descendants of cats are cats" is precisely what we would expect of evolution, by the definition of what "dogs" and "cats" are. By the same token, "all descendants of mammals are mammals" and "all descendants of marsupials are marsupials" are also true.

That is not a problem for evolution: it is, in fact, precisely what we would expect if it were true: one can never escape one's ancestry. However, that does not mean that population groups cannot bifurcate into distinct population groups that become reproductively isolated and develop along different lines, even with radically different appearances and ecological niches.

It's not a problem for evolution, but a problem with your own understanding. I suspect that here you're stuck on a definition of "species" you have in your head that isn't the same as the biological one. You also appear to think that "dogs will always be dogs" and "dogs can speciate" are mutually exclusive propositions when they are not. Perhaps that's a good place to start?

Quote
This doesn't explain how dogs, cats, and flies individually formed.

As it happens, we can tell from genetics, anatomy and the fossil record somewhat of the lineage of both dogs and cats. But that's a separate question - let's not get ahead of ourselves... do you understand why "all descendants of dogs are dogs" is precisely what is expected if evolution is true, and therefore, not a "problem" for it?
« Last Edit: November 05, 2013, 02:55:10 AM by Deus ex Machina »
No day in which you learn something is wasted.

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12466
  • Darwins +323/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
That was kind of the point, by your logic every creature has a purpose, what is a mosquitoes purpose?

I'm not sure. Plenty of people believe that flies and mosquitos were created by Satan via gene splicing. This is certainly one possibility. Nasty creatures. Doesn't seem like something God would create.

But but but...I thought Biblegod  created everything?

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12466
  • Darwins +323/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Deus,

No love for foxes? Dogs hunting dogs.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Online Aaron123

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2743
  • Darwins +77/-1
  • Gender: Male
But but but...I thought Biblegod  created everything?

-Nam

Biblegod created everything--except for the icky stuff.  That's all Satan's doing.  It says so in the bible, uh, somewhere.  There's over 1,000 pages in that thing, there must be something about it...
Being a Christian, I've made my decision. That decision offers no compromise; therefore, I'm closed to anything else.

Offline Ataraxia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 523
  • Darwins +79/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
#32.

Long time ago.
And as I said at the time, you are nitpicking.

Splitting hairs by trying to create a totally artificial distinction between 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution', and then trying to claim that science supports the former and not the latter, is not reasonable.  It is nothing more than an attempt to cast doubt on the affair so you can present your beliefs as an alternative without providing evidence for them.

You also never bothered addressing my point about the implications of speciation.  Specifically, how the divergence in a single species which that causes it to become separate species carries implications for the past development of existing species, and so on and so forth.

Evolution isn't about mosquitoes forming from fruit flies.  It's about both mosquitoes and fruit flies having diverged from their predecessor species, which diverged from their predecessor species, and so on.  It isn't about making a silk purse from a sow's ear, which is how you seem to be looking at it.

The species that would ultimately produce mosquitoes and fruit flies diverged a long time back - their closest relationship is the order Diptera.  What that actually means is that Diptera was a single population once, and it diverged into different species which had different traits.  Ultimately, through continued divergences, they became what we know of as fruit flies and mosquitoes.  But the point is, they're both Diptera - winged insects, and they both diverged off of that ancestor species.

You can trace speciation backwards as well as forward; pretending otherwise is dishonest.

I see.

So mosquitos and fruit flies have a common ancestor.
So how did other forms of life form?
Never get an elephant from mosquitos and fruit flies.

You're a Poe, right?
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12466
  • Darwins +323/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
But but but...I thought Biblegod  created everything?

-Nam

Biblegod created everything--except for the icky stuff.  That's all Satan's doing.  It says so in the bible, uh, somewhere.  There's over 1,000 pages in that thing, there must be something about it...

None that I have read. However, Colossians 1:16 says "god created everything". But maybe that's wrong. Skeptic has shown me the icky, and I am no longer blind and unsanitary.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.