Consideringlily, Oncedeceived and defining evolution

[Aron-Ra]

what aspect of our taxonomic classification do you contest, and why?

Again this goes to Creationism rather than my understanding or knowledge of ToE.

If you would like to ask questions in regard to Taxonomy to determine whether or not I understand the system I would be glad to do that.

OK. That's what I mean to do. Now what aspect of our taxonomic classification do you contest, and why?

 

[Oncedeceived]

OK. That's what I mean to do. Now what aspect of our taxonomic classification do you contest, and why?

I guess we couldn't stay on focus. Oh well.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Now what aspect of our taxonomic classification do you contest, and why?

I guess we couldn't stay on focus. Oh well.

Yeah, why is it that you won't stay focused now? This is such a simple question. We're gauging your knowledge of evolution, and taxonomy is certainly a critical part of that. You've said that you accept that humans are apes, and that you accept evolution to some as-yet undetermined degree, and you even make references to the origin of various phyla in the Cambrian, so what is your reason for being so evasive now?

You see, I always thought an adequate grasp of taxonomy was absolutely vital to understanding evolution. So much of evolutionary theory is based on that; genetic orthologues, tracing evolutionary phylogenies, recognizing morphological and physiological synapomorphies, and even new revelations in Darwin's and Haeckel's once contraversial topic, embryology in the newest field of study, evolutionary development, or "evo devo". So of course, I want to know what your general perspective on the rest of that is. And it doesn't make sense to have you just copy down or repeat what some instructional website says. If I know what your objections to that are, then I'll know where your difficulties are. So please stay focused, and answer my question.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Now what aspect of our taxonomic classification do you contest, and why? Yeah, why is it that you won't stay focused now? This is such a simple question. We're gauging your knowledge of evolution, and taxonomy is certainly a critical part of that. You've said that you accept that humans are apes, and that you accept evolution to some as-yet undetermined degree, and you even make references to the origin of various phyla in the Cambrian, so what is your reason for being so evasive now?

It is not a matter of being evasive, it is just that we've been there and done that and I know what happens. It doesn't center on evolution but it goes into the Bible and then all we have are rants against God and the Bible. I wanted to have a discussion that was unbiased on both sides but alas that is impossible I think.

You see, I always thought an adequate grasp of taxonomy was absolutely vital to understanding evolution. So much of evolutionary theory is based on that; genetic orthologues, tracing evolutionary phylogenies, recognizing morphological and physiological synapomorphies, and even new revelations in Darwin's and Haeckel's once contraversial topic, embryology in the newest field of study, evolutionary development, or "evo devo".

Yes I agree. But that is not where it goes when one speaks from a Creationist's viewpoint. It becomes you vs. me, God vs. Science and then it takes a different direction which is why it is really not with staying on this thread.

So of course, I want to know what your general perspective on the rest of that is. And it doesn't make sense to have you just copy down or repeat what some instructional website says.

I see, so I was just copying websites but Lily knows what she is talking about and didn't. See this is exactly what I am talking about. Your biases, her biases. You can't imagine that I am intelligent enough to know what I am talking about. I must have to copy...cut and paste.

 

[Aron-Ra]

I see, so I was just copying websites but Lily knows what she is talking about and didn't. See this is exactly what I am talking about. Your biases, her biases. You can't imagine that I am intelligent enough to know what I am talking about. I must have to copy...cut and paste.

So many false assumptions! Is that all creationists can do? I made no hint or implication on your intelligence whatsoever. If you don't agree with the teaching, then one way or another, you're just copying script with no legitimate meaning to you. So of course I won't know what your actual perspective on any of it is until you explain your problems with it. It ain't about mine or Lily's bias. Its not even about yours. Well, actually you just admitted that it was about your bias. But I wasn't thinking about that when I asked the question.

Apparently, your only contention with any aspect of our place in a cladogram is that we are in it at all. If your only problem with that is a religious bias having no factual basis you could state, (which is what you seem to be saying) then there's no point in even asking the question.

 

[Tomk80]

It is not a matter of being evasive, it is just that we've been there and done that and I know what happens. It doesn't center on evolution but it goes into the Bible and then all we have are rants against God and the Bible. I wanted to have a discussion that was unbiased on both sides but alas that is impossible I think.

Perhaps if we phrase the question differently, we can avoid this? For example, if we rephrase it to: "do you think the cladogram breaks down somewhere when looked at it from a purely scientific viewpoint and if so, where? Do you agree that the best scientific conclusion from the cladogram is descent with modification and if not, why not?

In my opinion, these two questions capture the discussion in a purely scientific way, do not detract from the topic and allow you to display your knowledge on evolution (since you are asked to explain the reasoning behind your answers). It avoids creationism entirely.

Yes I agree. But that is not where it goes when one speaks from a Creationist's viewpoint. It becomes you vs. me, God vs. Science and then it takes a different direction which is why it is really not with staying on this thread.

I'm afraid I disagree. I would agree with Aron-Ra that understanding cladistics is essential in understanding the theory of evolution and that the position you take in this will reflect how much of an understanding you have of it.

I see, so I was just copying websites but Lily knows what she is talking about and didn't. See this is exactly what I am talking about. Your biases, her biases. You can't imagine that I am intelligent enough to know what I am talking about. I must have to copy...cut and paste.

I don't think this is an accurate reflection of what Aron-Ra was saying.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Perhaps if we phrase the question differently, we can avoid this? For example, if we rephrase it to: "do you think the cladogram breaks down somewhere when looked at it from a purely scientific viewpoint and if so, where? Do you agree that the best scientific conclusion from the cladogram is descent with modification and if not, why not?

If this were the case I would have no problem, but it can't stay that way. Case in point:

Quote by Aron-Ra:
So many false assumptions! Is that all creationists can do?

Did he say, Oncedeceived, you are making false assumptions. Is that all you can do? No, he puts it in the Creationist bias. Anything I say whether valid, questionable or completely wrong will be based not on me as a person, my viewpoint but that of a Creationist which catagorically is what is most generalized in people with that view.

In my opinion, these two questions capture the discussion in a purely scientific way, do not detract from the topic and allow you to display your knowledge on evolution (since you are asked to explain the reasoning behind your answers). It avoids creationism entirely.

As shown, how can it avoid creationism when it already has been repeatedly used without me presenting it at all?

I'm afraid I disagree. I would agree with Aron-Ra that understanding cladistics is essential in understanding the theory of evolution and that the position you take in this will reflect how much of an understanding you have of it.

So questions in that area would be of no value? I could bring up my point of view but it would fall back into the same roles as seen already. Lily saying that I am intellectually dishonest or some other typical response to my viewpoints. I'd really like to think that it could be done without the usual put downs and generalizations but I really just don't see it as possible. I thought maybe this thread would allow it but as you see with Lily, it always comes back to me being a Creationist and not on what I know or don't know.

I don't think this is an accurate reflection of what Aron-Ra was saying.

Okay, so what do you think he meant?

 

[Tomk80]

If this were the case I would have no problem, but it can't stay that way. Case in point:


Did he say, Oncedeceived, you are making false assumptions. Is that all you can do? No, he puts it in the Creationist bias. Anything I say whether valid, questionable or completely wrong will be based not on me as a person, my viewpoint but that of a Creationist which catagorically is what is most generalized in people with that view. As shown, how can it avoid creationism when it already has been repeatedly used without me presenting it at all?

I can see how you run into that as a problem yes. However, at the same time I do think that answering those problems will, either now or in the further progression of the thread, become important if you want to demonstrate your complete understanding of the theory of evolution.

So questions in that area would be of no value? I could bring up my point of view but it would fall back into the same roles as seen already. Lily saying that I am intellectually dishonest or some other typical response to my viewpoints. I'd really like to think that it could be done without the usual put downs and generalizations but I really just don't see it as possible. I thought maybe this thread would allow it but as you see with Lily, it always comes back to me being a Creationist and not on what I know or don't know.

I agree that it seems very hard to really just discuss the understanding of the theory of evolution without these views propping up. But I would stress that the subject is important.

Okay, so what do you think he meant?

That discussing this subject would indicate whether you understand the subject, rather then regurgitating material without really understanding it. This does not mean he thinks you do the latter, just that discussing the subject would help discern whether you understand it or just regurgitate stuff.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Okay, I will think about how I can create a post that will provide information that can be evaluated on merit yet give my point of view at the same time.

 

[Tomk80]

Thanks! I'll try to respond without any biases

 

[Lilandra]

If this were the case I would have no problem, but it can't stay that way. Case in point:

Did he say, Oncedeceived, you are making false assumptions. Is that all you can do? No, he puts it in the Creationist bias. Anything I say whether valid, questionable or completely wrong will be based not on me as a person, my viewpoint but that of a Creationist which catagorically is what is most generalized in people with that view.

Do I get upset when you falsely assume, I will start attacking the Bible, because I am a nonbeliever?

Nope.

As shown, how can it avoid creationism when it already has been repeatedly used without me presenting it at all?

What is everybody supposed to do ignore the elephant in the room? It is not as if creationism doesn't make claims that contradict the ToE. That is fine. However, there has to be some sort of rational basis for counterclaims. Just as there has to be a rational basis for the ToE. Evolution is still being challenged,

Either way, any argument that can be destroyed by logic is not an argument worth keeping.

So yes, the basis for your position is relevant to illustrating your understanding of evolution.

 

[ranmaonehalf]

I'd like to thank Xeriar for assisting us in this.







Evolution is the theory that all life forms have evolved from one common ancestor.

I would somewhat disagree with this since the possiblity of microscopic life coming from outer space is a very realistic possiblity.

 

[Lilandra]

I would somewhat disagree with this since the possiblity of microscopic life coming from outer space is a very realistic possiblity.

Ranma 1/2 is hilarious.

​

Now back to the discussion.​

 

[ranmaonehalf]

Ranma 1/2 is hilarious.

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9G_Rq7WH...no=78&tt=42,045&oid=b02c15fb1edf129e&ei=UTF-8​

Now back to the discussion.​

Wow, you are the first person to recognize my name.

Domo

 

[Oncedeceived]

Do I get upset when you falsely assume, I will start attacking the Bible, because I am a nonbeliever?

Nope.

I wasn't referring to you.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I would somewhat disagree with this since the possiblity of microscopic life coming from outer space is a very realistic possiblity.

So if life came from outer space it could not have evolved from microscopic to the diversity we know today?

 

[Aron-Ra]

So if life came from outer space it could not have evolved from microscopic to the diversity we know today?

In the concept of panspermia, life would have arrived here in a microbial state during a period of profound bombardment in the early formation of the earth, soon after the formation of the moon. Either way, whether life began via natural chemical processes on earth, or if it arrived encased in meteoric rock, or even if it was inexplicably poofed into being by magic, it still evidently evolved from microscopic forms, just as most life still is today.

 

[Oncedeceived]

In the concept of panspermia, life would have arrived here in a microbial state during a period of profound bombardment in the early formation of the earth, soon after the formation of the moon. Either way, whether life began via natural chemical processes on earth, or if it arrived encased in meteoric rock, or even if it was inexplicably poofed into being by magic, it still evidently evolved from microscopic forms, just as most life still is today.

That was my point.

 

[ranmaonehalf]

So if life came from outer space it could not have evolved from microscopic to the diversity we know today?

Why not?
As a matter of fact life could have come from multiple sources, outspace and formation on earth.

 

[ranmaonehalf]

That was my point.

Ok so are you saying life did evolve from microscopic life or not?

My statement was that i disagreed with the concept in evolution saying that life had to be formed from life that originated on this planet. I in no way said life does not evolve.