I've Sacrificed my belief in Evolution for Religion

[Jose Fly]

@Jose Fly @Polymath257 @Subduction Zone @Darkstorn @metis @Thermos aquaticus

Ok guys, it has become necessary to point out a few things to all of you.

1. Yesterday I posted responses to 2 people in this thread.
2. I received over 30 responses from you guys just in this thread alone.
3. How on earth am I supposed to keep up in just this thread alone.
4. Many of you guys post between 2 and 5 responses to every one post of my own.
5. Despite spending hour after hour typing a fast as possible but falling farther behind every day.
6. I prefer to respond in depth concerning a few claims than to give shallow responses on a multitude of issues.
7. I have only two ways I can try to get caught up. I can limit my responses to only the core issues or I can end my discussions with many of you to concentrate on only one or two of our discussions. I regard both of those courses of action as rude on my part but I must select one to implement. So I am going to only respond to the core issue which is stated below.

Provide me with proof that common descent is true. You can do this by copying and pasting from a paper or article that contains evidence of "macroevolution". If I find what you copied and pasted challenging then I will investigate the link you provided. I must limit our discussions to this one argument to have any chance to keep up with our debates. So, whatever you post that is not what I just requested I will refer you back to this post.

Thanks,

I provided the information you requested in the following two posts....

I've Sacrificed my belief in Evolution for Religion

I've Sacrificed my belief in Evolution for Religion

 

[Subduction Zone]

See post #432

That is pathetically weak. If you have no answer then let a post be.

The evidence you have demanded has been given to you by several posters. It is rather obvious that you do not even understand the basics. That is why I offered to go over the basics of science and evidence with you. Going over the basics will allow you to understand the posts of others, help you with your ability to understand sources, and perhaps make it so that you can do proper research on your own.

A small investment in time can have huge payoffs.

 

[1robin]

Observations are not excuses.

This makes no sense but I didn't say that to begin with.

People are willing to help you to learn, but when you simply reject that which you do not understand you make it hard for people to respect your demands.

Apparently not. I have specifically explained what to provide to enable me to learn from it but all I get are excuses why you can't provide it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This makes no sense but I didn't say that to begin with.

It makes perfect sense. Posters made observations about you and you tried to claim that they were excuses.

Apparently not. I have specifically explained what to provide to enable me to learn from it but all I get are excuses why you can't provide it.

Your demands have been met, but you simply did not realize it. That is why I have offered to go over the basics with you If you learn the basics then you will be better able to understand the evidence that has been presented to you.

 

[1robin]

Yes I did. That you are too lazy to look does not mean the data doesn't exist.

I disagree and I didn't claim that the data does not exist I simply asked you to provide it and until you do I will remain skeptical.

I didn't ask you to "fully investigate every link you were given". I provided you with a link to one single paper in the PNAS. You don't even appear to be curious about its contents, which doesn't speak well of you or your position.

Come of it. If you provide a link I am perfectly warranted in believing you want me to investigate everything the link leads to. However that is exactly why I wanted you to post the specific part of the link you want me to consider, but it seems no force on earth can facilitate that request.

I mean, here you are going on and on about your belief in the Bible and how you're here to defend it, yet when someone responds to your argument and gives you a link to a paper published in a very prestigious journal, you can't even be bothered to click it? You're not even a little curious? Not curious enough to just read the abstract?

Wow.

Again it would take you far less time to copy and paste from any given link than your investing in claiming you can't.

As has been noted by management here, doing that is against forum rules. But rather than curse your deliberate ignorance, I'll explain the point.

What on Earth are you referring to? Copying and pasting from an article does not violate any forum rules as long as the link accompanies the selection. Providing an excerpt and a link is what is required in all professional debates.

The paper cites multiple examples where existing species of plants have been observed giving rise to new species that, due to differences in numbers of chromosomes, are physically incapable of breeding with the original parental species. And in those cases, the newly evolved species persists on its own just fine, even though it is completely reproductively isolated from the original species.

Ok, select the best example from your link and provide it.

IOW, it's exactly what you earlier claimed has never been observed and runs counter to what the Bible states.

I do not understand what you meant by this.

 

[1robin]

Uh, what?

I can't make it any clearer. If you do not get we should just move on.

... And posting in this thread. For over a month. LONG posts too occasionally.

Now it is me who does not know what you mean here.

I'm just saying your excuse for not reading a link is very weak. And it's becoming ever more elaborate, and diluted. Thus even weaker.

It is a fact whether you find that truth weak or not.

You've wasted enough of your "little time" in this thread for it to look like anything more than deflection.

See post #432.

A4 is a "standard" printer paper. A3 is larger, A5 smaller. The article has lots of large pictures. It's pretty short.

And you think the average person would know this?

What? I haven't posted a single excuse. The previous post you quoted is literally the first post i made in this thread. My argument was mostly this: You're too lazy to read your opponents' posts

You are proving that to be true

See post #432

 

[1robin]

@1robin ,

As I noted earlier, I'm more used to dealing with folks who are actually curious about things like the evolution of new species and as such, when they read the PNAS paper I linked to earlier, would also read some of the supporting papers. For example.....

You didn't quote me here but only mentioned me in connection with this post so I am not sure you wanted me to respond here but I will assume you did.

I am the most curios person you could run across but when you guys send over 30 responses a day my way all of my time is spent furiously typing as fast as I can just to try and respond to everyone. There is little time left to investigate link after link after link.

Recent and recurrent polyploidy in Tragopogon (Asteraceae): cytogenetic, genomic and genetic comparisons

Tragopogon mirus Ownbey and T. miscellus Ownbey are allopolyploids that formed repeatedly during the past 80 years following the introduction of three diploids (T. dubius Scop., T. pratensis L. and T. porrifolius L.) from Europe to western North America. These polyploid species of known parentage are useful for studying the consequences of recent and recurrent polyploidization. We summarize recent analyses of the cytogenetic, genomic and genetic consequences of polyploidy in Tragopogon. Analyses of rDNA ITS (internal transcribed spacer) + ETS (external transcribed spacer) sequence data indicate that the parental diploids are phylogenetically well separated within Tragopogon (a genus of perhaps 150 species), in agreement with isozymic and cpDNA data.​

I believe we're done here. Your claim is simply wrong.

Were done huh. I seriously doubt that you are going to stop responding to me. You did finally tried to provide what I asked for here but you still came up short but I applaud the effort, it only took a few dozen requests. However I do not see anything in what you copied and pasted that demonstrates that common descent is true. Can you bold the section above that is proof macroevolution has occurred, it appears to be a simple list of biological terms that merely demonstrate that microevolution has occurred which I have never challenged.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You didn't quote me here but only mentioned me in connection with this post so I am not sure you wanted me to respond here but I will assume you did.

I am the most curios person you could run across but when you guys send over 30 responses a day my way all of my time is spent furiously typing as fast as I can just to try and respond to everyone. There is little time left to investigate link after link after link.

Were done huh. I seriously doubt that you are going to stop responding to me. You did finally tried to provide what I asked for here but you still came up short but I applaud the effort, it only took a few dozen requests. However I do not see anything in what you copied and pasted that demonstrates that common descent is true. Can you bold the section above that is proof macroevolution has occurred, it appears to be a simple list of biological terms that merely demonstrate that microevolution has occurred which I have never challenged.

It was a paper on macroevolution. When you do not understand the terms that you are using you are guaranteed to fail.

Until you learn the basics you will simply go around in circles.

 

[Shushersbedamned]

Why is this thread so full of everyone saying "since you don't understand what I mean you're obviously hopelessly stupid and it is no use speaking to you at all"?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why is this thread so full of everyone saying "since you don't understand what I mean you're obviously hopelessly stupid and it is no use speaking to you at all"?

No one has said that. The inability of the OP to understand the basics of science has been recognized and people have offered to help him to learn. So far he has refused to even try. That may be a rather self defeating behavior on his part, but no one has called him stupid.

How many times have I offered to go over the basics with him and how often has he taken me up on my offer. I have no idea how many times that I made the offer but he has yet to even try to learn what the scientific method is and what is and what is not evidence.

 

[Shushersbedamned]

No one has said that. The inability of the OP to understand the basics of science has been recognized and people have offered to help him to learn. So far he has refused to even try. That may be a rather self defeating behavior on his part, but no one has called him stupid.

How many times have I offered to go over the basics with him and how often has he taken me up on my offer. I have no idea how many times that I made the offer but he has yet to even try to learn what the scientific method is and what is and what is not evidence.

I haven't seen a sign of the OP. Others than the OP are insulting others than the OP about things that have nothing to do with the OP.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I haven't seen a sign of the OP. Others than the OP are insulting others than the OP about things that have nothing to do with the OP.

You are right. My mistake. I thought that @1robin was the OP.

Let me correct my statement. People have offered to help 1robin to understand the science many times. He has not availed himself of those offers of assistance, And none have called him stupid.

 

[metis]

Provide me with proof that common descent is true. You can do this by copying and pasting from a paper or article that contains evidence of "macroevolution".

I did in my post #338, plus I linked you to other sources as well.

 

[1robin]

Why? You just said you're never going to bother reading any of it.

That is not t rue, I in fact said the exact opposite. I said specifically that I WOULD read any link I was given if someone could justify my doing so by posting an excerpt from the link that was challenged my argument.

This IS a debate. You are showing the minimum possible effort. Yet you are using a LOT of time. What does the Bible say about idleness?

See post #432

I understand that you demand a lot of things from others yet are unwilling to give anything yourself. You aren't even bothering to use any effort in this debate. But you did bother to post in it for over a month.

Nope I only asked for one thing.

If you ask me, the "investment is justifiable" in that you're on a debate forum making claims, and you could make it look like something else than you not bothering to read links by your own admission.

I didn't ask you.

 

[1robin]

No example was needed. We are talking about the basics of science that you do not understand.

So you can't or won't provide an example to justify your claim?

Sorry, you can't redefine evolution And if you want to claim that there is a limit to how far life can evolve the burden of proof is upon you. Specific examples have been given to you. Jose Fly just gave you one

Jose Fly only provided an example of microevolution which I have always affirmed.

Been there done that, bought the tee shirt. Now it is time for you to either learn the basics of science and evidence. Until you do there is no point in trying to help you.

What a cliché.

 

[1robin]

I am glad to hear from you again, and I hope your health improves.

. Thanks for the sentiments.

If you have any questions, please ask and I will do my best to clarify any of the concepts we have discussed.

Ok, I have a request. Please go back through your resent posts to myself and choose the strongest example of something that defeats my own position. I will try and spend more time on your response than I have been doing recently.

 

[1robin]

Since you have already stated that you are defending the Bible, I doubt that any observation would change your mind. I could show you multiple observations of fossils that have a mixture of human and ape features, but would these observations change your mind? I'm guessing not.

Let me restate what the bible says. I am defending the following:

New International Version
God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

So I am asking for proof that the above is not true. It is hard to establish exactly what the limits to evolution the bible states are true but I am looking for examples of common descent.

What's the difference between microevolution and macroevolution in your estimation?

All I can do is give you an example. For example proof that cows and whales share an ancestor.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you can't or won't provide an example to justify your claim?

Since that has already been done there would be no use to do so again. Until you learn the basics I would be wasting my time.

Jose Fly only provided an example of microevolution which I have always affirmed.

Nope, he gave an example of macroevolution. You do not even understand the terms that you are using.

What a cliché.

Only due to your refusal to learn.

Why are you so afraid to learn the basics? If you do know them it will take very little time to go over them. You keep demanding what you cannot understand when it is given to you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let me restate what the bible says. I am defending the following:

New International Version
God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

So I am asking for proof that the above is not true. It is hard to establish exactly what the limits to evolution the bible states are true but I am looking for examples of common descent.

So you are defending a myth that you can't even define. Tell us:

What is a "kind"?

All I can do is give you an example. For example proof that cows and whales share an ancestor.

That is far beyond macroevlution but the "proof" is in the fossil record, the "proof" is in DNA. The problem is that you do not even understand the concept of evidence. Nor do you seem to want to learn. How can you understand even the legal standard of "proof", which is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, when you do not understand what is and what is not evidence?

 

[Jose Fly]

You did finally tried to provide what I asked for here but you still came up short but I applaud the effort, it only took a few dozen requests. However I do not see anything in what you copied and pasted that demonstrates that common descent is true. Can you bold the section above that is proof macroevolution has occurred, it appears to be a simple list of biological terms that merely demonstrate that microevolution has occurred which I have never challenged.

This is what you originally stated:

The bible claims evolution only occurs within breeding populations. I affirm that and claim no one has observed one breeding population evolve into another.

So to counter my position you must show that in fact one breeding population is known to have evolved into another.​

And that's exactly what I posted, observed examples of populations giving rise to new separately breeding populations.

Your challenge has been met and your position is simply wrong.