If Evolution Were True

[Kilgore Trout]

You assume to much.

You avoid addressing any salient points.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

You avoid addressing any salient points.

You assume to much.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

You assume to much.

Nope, no assumption needed. I can review the thread and see all the posts which specifically address problems/questions you've had, and then see how you selectively choose which posts (and even more pathetically), which parts of posts you decide to respond to - which inevitably have nothing to do with the salient points.

 

[fantome profane]

The grandest macro-evolution I would define as the concept that single-celled organisms (which is where life supposedly originated) evolved to created the panopoly of life that we see today.

Alright so you don’t believe that the diversity of species we see to day evolved from a single one celled organism. That is fine. My position may be different from others you have talked with about this topic. Personally I don’t care what you believe. I don’t mean that rudely, certainly I am willing to listen to your beliefs, but they are not relevant to what I am trying to discuss with you. I am only interested in what you understand.

Do you know of any scientific evidence or reasons that contradicts the theory of common descent?




You mentioned breeding dogs in one post. Can I assume that you have no problem with the concept that the modern breeds of dogs have evolved from a wolf like ancestor (the gray wolf approximately 130 000 years ago)?


How about the evolution of horses? Can I assume you have not problem with the concept that the modern horse has evolved from a species referred to as “Miohippus” which lived 25 million years ago?


What about the concept that homo sapiens evolved from a species referred to as homo erectus that lived around 1.8 million years ago?


What about the evolution of the elephant? Can I assume you have no problem with the concept that the modern elephant has evolved from a specied referred to as “Primelephas” approximately 5 million years ago.



Do you have a problem with any of these examples of evolution? Do you understand the scientific evidence that has lead biologists to these conclusions?

 

[Autodidact]

She's kinda mousy though.[/font]

The grandest macro-evolution I would define as the concept that single-celled organisms (which is where life supposedly originated) evolved to created the panopoly of life that we see today.

O.K., so putting it all together, what I'm getting is that yes, you agree that new species arise from old species via the mechanism I described, but at the same time, you disagree that all life descended from a single common ancestor by this process. So, putting two and two together, it seems that you think that some species arose some other way, right? What other way, what species, and how do you know?

 

[Valjean]

The alternative theory, proposed by proponents of ID, is magic. Ie: they popped into existence by an unknowable mechanism or through no mechanism at all.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Alright so you don’t believe that the diversity of species we see to day evolved from a single one celled organism. That is fine. My position may be different from others you have talked with about this topic. Personally I don’t care what you believe. I don’t mean that rudely, certainly I am willing to listen to your beliefs, but they are not relevant to what I am trying to discuss with you. I am only interested in what you understand.

Do you know of any scientific evidence or reasons that contradicts the theory of common descent?




You mentioned breeding dogs in one post. Can I assume that you have no problem with the concept that the modern breeds of dogs have evolved from a wolf like ancestor (the gray wolf approximately 130 000 years ago)?


How about the evolution of horses? Can I assume you have not problem with the concept that the modern horse has evolved from a species referred to as “Miohippus” which lived 25 million years ago?


What about the concept that homo sapiens evolved from a species referred to as homo erectus that lived around 1.8 million years ago?


What about the evolution of the elephant? Can I assume you have no problem with the concept that the modern elephant has evolved from a specied referred to as “Primelephas” approximately 5 million years ago.



Do you have a problem with any of these examples of evolution? Do you understand the scientific evidence that has lead biologists to these conclusions?

Let me make this easier for both you and Autodidact. Give me your best proof of an evolutionary genus change.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Nope, no assumption needed. I can review the thread and see all the posts which specifically address problems/questions you've had, and then see how you selectively choose which posts (and even more pathetically), which parts of posts you decide to respond to - which inevitably have nothing to do with the salient points.

I address the points that keep my line of questioning focused. You address points your way, I'll do it mine. I'm also psychic, I know which points are doubtful disputations ahead of time. Like this one.

 

[Autodidact]

Let me make this easier for both you and Autodidact. Give me your best proof of an evolutionary genus change.

sandy, sandy, sandy--no proof in science, you know that. Maybe you meant evidence?

I don't understand your question; you were a bit terse. What would be easier is if you answered the questions I asked you.

Are you saying that new species do evolve, but never a new genus? That evolution is confined to the level of species?

I don't understand how that would work. Once a new species evolves from an old one, can't another new one evolve from that? And another new one from that? And another new one from that? And by that time, wouldn't it be a different genus?

I guess if I had to pick one, the best evidence would be DNA. For example, DNA shows us that marsupial mice are more closely related to kangaroos than to our mice, however similar they may look to us.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I address the points that keep my line of questioning focused. You address points your way, I'll do it mine. I'm also psychic, I know which points are doubtful disputations ahead of time. Like this one.

Well kid, I can definitely say that you turn intellectual dishonesty into an art form. Bravo!

 

[Autodidact]

Well, sandy, I think it's only good manners to respond to all the people who are responding to you. Otherwise it's as if you ignore one person in a conversation. Also, you wouldn't want anyone to think you had no answers to some questions, or were avoiding the more difficult questions, would you?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Well kid, I can definitely say that you turn intellectual dishonesty into an art form. Bravo!

You assume too much.

 

[Autodidact]

sandy: What is your position? Are you asserting <10,000 year old earth, global flood, magic poofing, ark, etc.? Or something else. If so, what?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Well, sandy, I think it's only good manners to respond to all the people who are responding to you. Otherwise it's as if you ignore one person in a conversation. Also, you wouldn't want anyone to think you had no answers to some questions, or were avoiding the more difficult questions, would you?

Why should I care what others think of me. People think what they want based on their preconceptions anyway. And good manners are quite questionable here.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Why should I care what others think of me.

Well, if you are a Christian, then you should be very concerned about the fate of our eternal souls. You should, as I understand it, be telling us why Christianity is the one true way to God. If you just come here to snipe...what's the point?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

sandy: What is your position? Are you asserting <10,000 year old earth, global flood, magic poofing, ark, etc.? Or something else. If so, what?

I don't have a position on the age of the earth. I haven't studied it in enough detail. I thought I stated my position but I'll give it in more detail. Given the oldest assumed age for the beginning of life I do not think that there has been anywhere near the time needed for the panopoly of life that exists today to have sprung from simple single-celled organisms. I believe that science has taken too many leaps of faith to make their conclusions. I also believe that scientists are arrogant enough to deny that they take many things on faith.

My position on the mutitude of varied life is that God created it.

 

[Autodidact]

Why should I care what others think of me. People think what they want based on their preconceptions anyway. And good manners are quite questionable here.

O.K., doesn't care about common courtesy or the opinions of others. Good to know. Not being Christian, I will extend courtesy to you nonetheless.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I don't have a position on the age of the earth. I haven't studied it in enough detail. I thought I stated my position but I'll give it in more detail. Given the oldest assumed age for the beginning of life I do not think that there has been anywhere near the time needed for the panopoly of life that exists today to have sprung from simple single-celled organisms. I believe that science has taken too many leaps of faith to make their conclusions. I also believe that scientists are arrogant enough to deny that they take many things on faith.

You assume way too much.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Well, if you are a Christian, then you should be very concerned about the fate of our eternal souls. You should, as I understand it, be telling us why Christianity is the one true way to God. If you just come here to snipe...what's the point?

You just proved my point about preconceptions. Also what you are suggesting could be deemed prosyletizing here.

My original goal of coming here was to debate Biblical points of which I am best prepared to do. Otherwise I follow lines which amuse or educate me. This particular one started out as amusement based on a posters assumptions but I am willing to continue because a few people want to educate me about evolution. Presumably more than I can find on Wikipedia.

 

[Autodidact]

I don't have a position on the age of the earth. I haven't studied it in enough detail. I thought I stated my position but I'll give it in more detail. Given the oldest assumed age for the beginning of life I do not think that there has been anywhere near the time needed for the panopoly of life that exists today to have sprung from simple single-celled organisms. I believe that science has taken too many leaps of faith to make their conclusions. I also believe that scientists are arrogant enough to deny that they take many things on faith.

My position on the mutitude of varied life is that God created it.

Sandy, you forgot--we are all assuming that God created everything. That's not the issue. What we're talking about is HOW He created it--by evolution, or some other way. How do you think God created the different species, magic poofing?

So apparently you reject science in general, I gather. What I mean is, science has established that the earth is approximately 4.56 billion years old, but that's not good enough for you? And around 3.5 billion years for life to have evolved. And what you're saying is that isn't enough time for the diversity of life to have evolved? Could you share your math on that, why that wouldn't be enough time? Because the Biologists who have done the calculations are pretty sure it is.

Telling us what you don't think is not telling us what you do think. All I'm getting from you is that you think that ToE is wrong, but nothing about what you think happened. If you don't think ToE explains the diversity of life, what's your better explanation?