Why do Evolutionists not like to actually debate Evolution and rely on personal attacks?

[LuisDantas]

Ok, I give up. He's all yours, Kilgore. Have fun.

 

[Ouroboros]

OK

No. You said I did not understand evolution because I mentioned fruit flies with bacteria. Haha Stupid me.

The funny thing is you all say your evidence of one species changing into another is bacteria. The last time I checked bacteria is mostly one species. The only one who care that two bacteria that look and act the same are actually two different species is you maybe, to prove your point, and National Geographic.

The term "species" is an arbitrary grouping made by us humans. The taxonomic system has changed over the years and even some "species" have been moved and regrouped depending on genetic evidence. Today, one of the rules for "species" is that they can't copulate, but it's not a fixed or easy rule to use since there are species that can't reproduce with their own relatives.

For instance, we can see in the genetic code that whales are related to cows through a common ancestor called pakicetus. It can be seen through common marker genes. The thing is that there are markers and traces in the gene code that would be statistically impossible for mutating individually on separate occasions. sleep: but you knew that already, right?)

We share a bunch of genetic uniqueness with chimps. There are one a handful of species in the world that can't produce c-vitamins. You have to get c-vitamins because you're a human. A few other animals have the same problem. And it's because of broken genes. We have the exact same broken gene, broken the same was, as chimps, but the other animals with broken genes have a different breakage. And we share at least 22 such genes with the chimps. Statistically, not very possible for it to be random. Sharing ancestry is much more likely. And this is only the ERVs, there are many other similar genetic commonalities.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Ok, I give up. He's all yours, Kilgore. Have fun.

I always do. Even this one is getting boring now, though.

 

[Ouroboros]

You mean who is it for. Not you. You are doing well to prove the OP wrong. The one putting to me sleep is proving the OP right. Like they're on the same team.

Ah. Good. Because I'd like to discuss these things at times and explain what I know, but age is catching up and it's just very tedious.

Put it this way, one of the classes I took was 5 hours of class each week, and 10 hours of study at home, hundreds of pages of theoretical facts, arguments, logic, math, blah, blah, and then trying to put together (or even remember the past parts) in a discussion... yeah... it's easier to say "you idiot!" I know. I've been there many times.

If I can find my books again, perhaps one day I should start a thread about explaining all the different parts of evolution and what/how it proves what it does. If I have time... and energy. Most of the time I just want to cook and drink beer.

 

[savagewind]

that there are markers and traces in the gene code that would be statistically impossible for mutating individually on separate occasions.

People use statistics to prove different species share a common ancestor.
I have proposed statistics can prove so many mutations could not possibly have happened in the time that scientists say has transpired since the last universal ancestor. It is why I will never believe evolution alone made us.

 

[savagewind]

I always do. Even this one is getting boring now, though.

Maybe it's because you have said nothing original but keep on saying the same thing many different ways. Good for you!

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Maybe it's because you have said nothing original but keep on saying the same thing many different ways.

I wonder how many ways there are to say "irony."

 

[savagewind]

I wonder how many ways there are to say "irony."

OMG Ya fruit flies and jets at the speed of sound same thing. Exactly the same thing.

 

[savagewind]

Should I explain what I mean by jet flight?
It means a question. What caused the human brain to act with split second timing and precision? What force enabled it? Why can one generation do it? Where did it come from?

 

[ignition]

This is retarded. Do you "believe in" relativity? Do you "believe in" quantum mechanics?

Yes and yes.

 

[Alceste]

Evolution does not explain how one species becomes another.

Actually, that's exactly what evolution does. That's why Darwin's book was CALLED On the Origin of Species. Evolution does nothing but explain how one species gradually adapts to changes in its environment until it eventually becomes another.

It's statements like this that have the rest of us convinced creationists in general do not actually understand evolution.

What exactly do you think evolutionary biology is for, if not to "explain how one species becomes another"?

 

[Alceste]

Most of the time, in common venacular a "Creationist" believe in special creation, i.e. God creating each and individual species in the past to be exactly what they are now. So if you look at a horse, that's how the horse was created and nothing else, but unfortunately, the fossil record can show the evolution of the horse. Anyway, in a loose definition, I can see how a "creationist" can include anyone who is a "theistic evolutionist" or "intelligent designist." God creating the species by using evolutionary process. The evidence of evolution is very clear. A person can always consider that a divine controller is steering evolution is a certain direction and call that "creationism", of course. But still, evolution is evident and clear.

I was a Christian and creationist until 2004. For 30 years I was a hardcore Christian. I went on mission trips and walked city streets with a Bible in my hands. In 2004, I lost my faith (of various reasons), and I learned more about how evolution really works. It's about being honest to oneself and really study the facts and understand that arguments in depth. But... few years ago I took a couple of physical/biological anthropology classes and labs. It was mind-blowing. I didn't know how much evidence and solid foundation there was for evolutionary theory. To deny it is to deny 10 (or more) different sciences, even math. There are books written just about the math underlying evolutionary theory. We had to learn a few formulas, but in general, it's about processes and understanding that change really is change. DNA does change, and some of those changes leave traces. There are genetic evidence for evolution, and evidence in the fossil bones, you just have to learn how to read the bones and what different things mean.

Look, Kilgore Trout, I think we have finally a found a creationist who understands evolution.

OK, well, at least a former creationist who understands evolution. But that's the only kind I've ever found, so I guess it'll have to do.

 

[ignition]

Look, Kilgore Trout, I think we have finally a found a creationist who understands evolution.

OK, well, at least a former creationist who understands evolution. But that's the only kind I've ever found, so I guess it'll have to do.

I'm a Creationist who understands evolution

 

[Alceste]

Just answer the question for goodness sake. According to you does evolution only work on offspring?
I know it does. It can only work on offspring.Am I wrong?

You're neither right nor wrong. The question itself barely makes any sense in the context of evolution. You might as well as whether a marathon is run with one step of your right foot or one step of your left. A question like that is very close to gibberish, right? Why? Because you know what the word "marathon" means. Likewise, because I know what the word "evolution" means, it's almost impossible for me to make any sense of this question. Nevertheless, I'll have a go.

Every organism is slightly different from their parents due to random genetic copying errors. So in that sense, evolution is "working" on offspring. On the other hand, adaptations that provide further opportunities for reproduction become more numerous, as the organisms with that adaptation can have more offspring of their own. In that sense, evolution is "working" on parents. On the OTHER other hand, no offspring is so completely different from its parents that you could call it an entirely separate species, so evolution is "working" on neither the parents nor the offspring. It's "working" on reproductively isolated populations over the span of hundreds of generations of parents and offspring.

 

[Alceste]

OK

No. You said I did not understand evolution because I mentioned fruit flies with bacteria. Haha Stupid me.

The funny thing is you all say your evidence of one species changing into another is bacteria. The last time I checked bacteria is mostly one species. The only one who care that two bacteria that look and act the same are actually two different species is you maybe, to prove your point, and National Geographic.

Oh really? And when was the last time you checked? Care to check again?

New Scientist Short Sharp Science Blog: Counting in a bacterial world - New Scientist

 

[Alceste]

Ah. Good. Because I'd like to discuss these things at times and explain what I know, but age is catching up and it's just very tedious.

Put it this way, one of the classes I took was 5 hours of class each week, and 10 hours of study at home, hundreds of pages of theoretical facts, arguments, logic, math, blah, blah, and then trying to put together (or even remember the past parts) in a discussion... yeah... it's easier to say "you idiot!" I know. I've been there many times.

If I can find my books again, perhaps one day I should start a thread about explaining all the different parts of evolution and what/how it proves what it does. If I have time... and energy. Most of the time I just want to cook and drink beer.

Me too! You can get through these threads with just one book though: the Greatest Show on Earth. It doesn't tell you absolutely everything you can learn about evolutionary biology, but it certainly gives you all the information you will ever need for an evolution vs. creation debate on RF or IRL. And it's pop science, so you can read it drunk and spill food on it.

 

[savagewind]

Actually, that's exactly what evolution does. That's why Darwin's book was CALLED On the Origin of Species. Evolution does nothing but explain how one species gradually adapts to changes in its environment until it eventually becomes another.

It's statements like this that have the rest of us convinced creationists in general do not actually understand evolution.

What exactly do you think evolutionary biology is for, if not to "explain how one species becomes another"?

OK. You have me there. So far evolution has not PROVED one species has become another. Bacteria is bacteria. Dogs are dogs. Roses are roses.
100 million species. There are more that have become extinct. All these have arrived in four billion years. I can't believe that.

 

[savagewind]

If what I knew was one million species in 1000 billion years I would also be an arrogant atheist.

 

[Alceste]

I'm a Creationist who understands evolution

Really? Nice to meet you. So what exactly is it about evolution that you find unconvincing? Do you believe, for example, that we can observe huge morphological changes in a fairly short number of generations through selective breeding? For example, a huge variety of dogs? Do you believe that the effects of reproductive isolation we see in animal husbandry and pet breeding also exist in the natural world in many different circumstances?

I'm hoping it's a yes and a yes, so I'll move on to the next question: Do you believe there is a limit to the amount of morphological change this reproductive isolation can result in? This is the key point where creationists persistently fail to make their case, in my experience. No specific mechanism is ever proposed that would prevent continuous morphological change, so there's no reason to believe it should ever hit any kind of limit.

Everything else about evolution not only logically flows from the first two observations, it is also supported by dozens of independent lines of evidence from a dizzying variety of different fields of research, including direct observation, both in a laboratory and in the wild.

 

[Alceste]

OK. You have me there. So far evolution has not PROVED one species has become another. Bacteria is bacteria. Dogs are dogs. Roses are roses.
100 million species. There are more that have become extinct. All these have arrived in four billion years. I can't believe that.

There are tens or hundreds of thousands of species of bacteria, and yes we have directly observed new species of bacteria evolving, both in a laboratory and in nature.

Dogs are dogs, but wolves, foxes, jackals and coyotes aren't dogs.The concept of a what makes a distinct species might still be up for debate, even among biologists, but not one is going to tell you those animals are all the same species.

You will, however, find creationists calling them all one "kind", mostly in order to compress the total number of animals Noah had to cram onto his boat. If you're one of those creationists, then you do actually believe in speciation from common ancestry, I'm sorry to say.