Asking for interpretations of this cladogram

[AnotherAtheist]

So gala


Though I do agree that speciation results in functionally new information in the genome what we see in your examples is galaxids from galaxids and bears from bears....I am sure JTS would agree with that application...

JTS do YOU believe preliminary bears led to varieties of bears? If so IMO as well this is a form of new information (nothing like bears becoming whales and such, but change nonetheless)

What examples do you want? Ubiquitous genes and other evidence, combined with more mountains of evidence for evolution itself, show common ancestry of everything. Since both us and portabello mushrooms have a common ancestor, something has clearly evolved into something radically different.

 

[PsychoSarah]

What examples do you want? Ubiquitous genes and other evidence, combined with more mountains of evidence for evolution itself, show common ancestry of everything. Since both us and portabello mushrooms have a common ancestor, something has clearly evolved into something radically different.

When creationists don't believe the part I bolded, your post wouldn't exactly be convincing to them, now would it?

 

[AnotherAtheist]

When creationists don't believe the part I bolded, your post wouldn't exactly be convincing to them, now would it?

Absolutely nothing that conflicts with their world-view will be convincing to them. I'm not expecting to convert creationists. I'm interested in debate, and I can support the bolded claim.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Absolutely nothing that conflicts with their world-view will be convincing to them.

That's not entirely true, as everyone has a degree of flexibility. Change their views entirely? Probably not. Change some aspect of their views? Now that, sir, is doable. I've met plenty of creationists on here that are very interested in learning more about evolution and biology in general.

I'm not expecting to convert creationists. I'm interested in debate, and I can support the bolded claim.

If you want challenging debate, I recommend the Ethics and Morality subforum. Or I'll be your "creationist" debate partner in private messages, because I have a love of practicing debate strategies when supporting a position I myself don't hold.

 

[pshun2404]

You didn't answer the question, you simply moved the goalposts. So let's try again: how many common ancestors would you need to be shown for you to stop this nonsense? We already have the wolf, the galaxiid and the brown bear but that obviously isn't enough. My suspicion is the answer is "if you can't show me a specific one of my choosing then I will continue my nonsense."

Wolves from wolves, fish from fish, bears from bears and humans from humans??? NO one doubts that...maybe you could show him the alleged common ancestor for orangutans and gorillas or for humans and chimps...or even better the one for all of them....you pick?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Wolves from wolves, fish from fish, bears from bears and humans from humans??? NO one doubts that...maybe you could show him the alleged common ancestor for orangutans and gorillas or for humans and chimps...or even better the one for all of them....you pick?

Like I said, not interested in common ancestors that can be shown, only interested in specific ones of your own choosing. If you're happy with that level of dishonesty then so be it. We all understand your need to pretend there's a difference.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Like I said, not interested in common ancestors that can be shown, only interested in specific ones of your own choosing. If you're happy with that level of dishonesty then so be it. We all understand your need to pretend there's a difference.

What about this made him inflexible? "maybe you could show him the alleged common ancestor for orangutans and gorillas or for humans and chimps...or even better the one for all of them....you pick?"

He's asking for a common ancestor between different species, such as humans and chimps, rather than an evolutionary line exclusive to humans, for example. Seemed fairly clear to me.

Here's a common ancestor of whales and dolphins:

The fossil

That was simple.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

What about this made him inflexible? "maybe you could show him the alleged common ancestor for orangutans and gorillas or for humans and chimps...or even better the one for all of them....you pick?"

He's asking for a common ancestor between different species, such as humans and chimps, rather than an evolutionary line exclusive to humans, for example. Seemed fairly clear to me.

Here's a common ancestor of whales and dolphins:

The fossil

That was simple.

You misundetstood what he asked for. Look back at what you quoted - he asked for one of the following:

1. Orangutans and gorillas
2. Humans and chimps
3. All primates

What you presented is none of the above. As I predicted, he asked for something very specific and will ignore anything else we could present. That, in my book, is extremely inflexible.

 

[pshun2404]

What about this made him inflexible? "maybe you could show him the alleged common ancestor for orangutans and gorillas or for humans and chimps...or even better the one for all of them....you pick?"

He's asking for a common ancestor between different species, such as humans and chimps, rather than an evolutionary line exclusive to humans, for example. Seemed fairly clear to me.

Here's a common ancestor of whales and dolphins:

The fossil

That was simple.

Cool! And what makes you think it is a common ancestor for these two aquatic mammals?

First is it Pakicetus or Ambulocetus? The reconstructions I have seen look very similar...

This was what we actually found of Ambulocetus and there are some differing opinions

 

[pshun2404]

You misundetstood what he asked for. Look back at what you quoted - he asked for one of the following:

1. Orangutans and gorillas
2. Humans and chimps
3. All primates

What you presented is none of the above. As I predicted, he asked for something very specific and will ignore anything else we could present. That, in my book, is extremely inflexible.

I never asked for the common ancestor of all primates! Sarah had the right idea...

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I never asked for the common ancestor of all primates! Sarah had the right idea...

You can pretend that's what you said, but let me remind you what your actual words were:

maybe you could show him the alleged common ancestor for orangutans and gorillas or for humans and chimps...or even better the one for all of them....you pick?

That's just the 3 options I said you gave. Do you still want to pretend or will you admit I was right?

 

[pshun2404]

You can pretend that's what you said, but let me remind you what your actual words were:

That's just the 3 options I said you gave. Do you still want to pretend or will you admit I was right?

Not at all, since primates (16 families) include far more than just apes or humans...

Do YOU claim a common ancestor for all primates? I would be glad to view and consider that as well!

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Not at all, since primates (16 families) include far more than just apes or humans...

Watch and learn - you're right, I was wrong.

So I'll correct myself- you asked for an ancestor for orangutans, gorillas, humans and chimps. That's still not what Sarah understood or what you pretend you said.

Your turn....

 

[AnotherAtheist]

That's not entirely true, as everyone has a degree of flexibility. Change their views entirely? Probably not. Change some aspect of their views? Now that, sir, is doable. I've met plenty of creationists on here that are very interested in learning more about evolution and biology in general.

If you want challenging debate, I recommend the Ethics and Morality subforum. Or I'll be your "creationist" debate partner in private messages, because I have a love of practicing debate strategies when supporting a position I myself don't hold.

At some point you're going to have to address deep time and evidence through evidence of common descent. If you feel that you can do a better job of addressing that, please feel free to do so.

One of my other threads LOOKS like it's being productive. Not in terms of changing people's minds, but in terms of mutual understanding. If I get more evidence that Creationists here are interested in quality debate (which pretty much invariably means learning by both sides, even if opinions are not changed), then of course I'll update my beliefs.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Wolves from wolves, fish from fish, bears from bears and humans from humans??? NO one doubts that...maybe you could show him the alleged common ancestor for orangutans and gorillas or for humans and chimps...or even better the one for all of them....you pick?

Speciation by typical means will always result in a daughter species quite similar to the parent. Hence, if you're asking for a speciation event that moves from one taxa to another, then of course you won't find them. Neither does the theory of evolution predict those.

If you want to understand how the theory of evolution explains humans from reptiles, then it's due to huge numbers of speciation events along the way. From a reptilian reptile, to a slightly more mammal like reptile, to a slightly more mammal like reptile, eventually to a reptile like mammal, to a slightly less reptile like mammal, and so on. And that's assuming that the path is a straight line from reptile to human. There's no reason why it couldn't be much less direct than that.

BTW: Some people do doubt different species of bears from bears.

 

[pshun2404]

Watch and learn - you're right, I was wrong.

So I'll correct myself- you asked for an ancestor for orangutans, gorillas, humans and chimps. That's still not what Sarah understood or what you pretend you said.

Your turn....

I am proud of you Bear...up until now I thought I was the only one who can (as I have) admit they were incorrect. I have done this on this and other forums a few times. In some cases it has caused me to adjust my position (this happened in a discussion of Ligers and Tigons for example).

No I meant Sarah got the idea...she gave an alleged common ancestor for whales and dolphins and though I did not ask for these literally in my attempt to clarify for YOU what JTS was asking, the idea was grasped.

Anyway thanks for being honest enough to say the words publicly. I do not really care to discuss the "ancestor of the gaps" hypothesis at any length in this thread (as that would be a deflection) but I would love to talk about it on a different thread.

As you know there is a difference between KNOW and BELIEVE and I find this another hurdle in these discussions. Hardliners from the extremes in both camps are unable to separate the two. Of course this is because they think what they believe (in most cases have been taught) is true. But has it really been shown to be true?

 

[pshun2404]

At some point you're going to have to address deep time and evidence through evidence of common descent. If you feel that you can do a better job of addressing that, please feel free to do so.

One of my other threads LOOKS like it's being productive. Not in terms of changing people's minds, but in terms of mutual understanding. If I get more evidence that Creationists here are interested in quality debate (which pretty much invariably means learning by both sides, even if opinions are not changed), then of course I'll update my beliefs.

What thread is that? I would be interested in viewing it. In my experience I find your conclusion is applicable to people on both sides. Sarah for example is a strong supporter (like Jimmy D.) of the Classic Standard model of Evolution but I find them both more flexible than most (an open mind may not agree but demonstrates at least consideration of opposing positions).

I believe that people (even in the same basic camp) should be able to agree to disagree without resorting to insults and belittling the other person's intelligence but apparently the "convinced" are unable to do this (I have not seen this behavior in your posts but in others)

 

[pshun2404]

Speciation by typical means will always result in a daughter species quite similar to the parent. Hence, if you're asking for a speciation event that moves from one taxa to another, then of course you won't find them. Neither does the theory of evolution predict those.

If you want to understand how the theory of evolution explains humans from reptiles, then it's due to huge numbers of speciation events along the way. From a reptilian reptile, to a slightly more mammal like reptile, to a slightly more mammal like reptile, eventually to a reptile like mammal, to a slightly less reptile like mammal, and so on. And that's assuming that the path is a straight line from reptile to human. There's no reason why it couldn't be much less direct than that.

BTW: Some people do doubt different species of bears from bears.

I totally understand that. And when you say "Speciation by typical means will always result in a daughter species quite similar to the parent" I 100% agree.

I also grasp that the pre-supposition of the CSoE is that "..the theory of evolution (allegedly) explains humans from reptiles (actually assumes)...due to huge numbers of speciation events along the way." Other scientists who have found errors or contrary data to the CSoE position (like PE theorists and those who hold the EES position) accept the above POSSIBILITY and explain the how slightly differently.

The problem is that all we have seen in the record of deep time, and all we have seen in our recent reality (the last centuries) AND all we have ever demonstrated in Laboratory testing shows only the first premise (speciation produces variety) to be true, and none of this has ever shown that the second premise is at all true. It is "believed" but not "known". It is a paradigm from and through which evidences are interpreted.

This is not only a problem with some convinced of thew Classic Standard Evolutionary model but also theologically among certain camps of the YEC position. They cannot think outside the box and make adjustments but instead interpret all (even the scriptures) through the lens of their paradigm.

So I totally understand "how the theory of evolution explains humans from reptiles", I just do not see any real evidence...only provisional evidence and hypothesis driven interpretation.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

I totally understand that. And when you say "Speciation by typical means will always result in a daughter species quite similar to the parent" I 100% agree.

I also grasp that the pre-supposition of the CSoE is that "..the theory of evolution (allegedly) explains humans from reptiles (actually assumes)...due to huge numbers of speciation events along the way." Other scientists who have found errors or contrary data to the CSoE position (like PE theorists and those who hold the EES position) accept the above POSSIBILITY and explain the how slightly differently.

The problem is that all we have seen in the record of deep time, and all we have seen in our recent reality (the last centuries) AND all we have ever demonstrated in Laboratory testing shows only the first premise (speciation produces variety) to be true, and none of this has ever shown that the second premise is at all true. It is "believed" but not "known". It is a paradigm from and through which evidences are interpreted.

This is not only a problem with some convinced of thew Classic Standard Evolutionary model but also theologically among certain camps of the YEC position. They cannot think outside the box and make adjustments but instead interpret all (even the scriptures) through the lens of their paradigm.

So I totally understand "how the theory of evolution explains humans from reptiles", I just do not see any real evidence...only provisional evidence and hypothesis driven interpretation.

The evidence you ask for is the genetic and molecular evidence of common descent, in the fossil record, and morphology. Particularly when this is combined with geology. (E.g. species that evolved during different geological epochs when the land masses were arranged differently.) There's plenty of such evidence, but you just ignore it and claim it isn't there.

Note that genetic and molecular evidence in particular is produced in the laboratory, with laboratory testing including computer analysis.

There is none so blind as they who refuse to see.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

What thread is that? I would be interested in viewing it. In my experience I find your conclusion is applicable to people on both sides. Sarah for example is a strong supporter (like Jimmy D.) of the Classic Standard model of Evolution but I find them both more flexible than most (an open mind may not agree but demonstrates at least consideration of opposing positions).

I believe that people (even in the same basic camp) should be able to agree to disagree without resorting to insults and belittling the other person's intelligence but apparently the "convinced" are unable to do this (I have not seen this behavior in your posts but in others)

It's the thread one level up which is a challenge to YEC.