Consideringlily, Oncedeceived and defining evolution

[Lilandra]

Hey, you were the one that assumed that I was held no knowledge of ToE, or at least that I couldn't considering that I was a Creationist.

I am not making any sort of statement on your intelligence. Nor have I ever said you held "no" knowledge of the ToE.

IMHO creationists have an obligation to defend the Bible first and science is second.

Non-creationists are not under a similar obligation. I see it it is a handicap in a discussion of reality.

I am not directing that personally at you.

That is rather ironic considering that you said that a discussion of evolution would have to relate to my position. Regardless, I feel comfortable either way.

I meant I want your position on evolution out in the open. Sorry about the confusion. Regardless a discussion on evolution will center on science.

I didn't feel you were being sinister, I just wanted to know what page we are on. If you are still in the mode of my knowledge vs. yours then I feel bringing in other people is an advantage for you.

An advantage in what way? Numbers?

As you can see, evolutionists are quick to correct each other. I would be roundly criticized if I made a mistake.

If you concede that I am as knowlegeable about ToE as you (or at least have a correct and working understanding of it) then we can go into a discussion that includes anyone you wish.

I concede you have more knowledge of the ToE than all the Creationists on this board except maybe Mark Kennedy.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I am not making any sort of statement on your intelligence. Nor have I ever said you held "no" knowledge of the ToE.

IMHO creationists have an obligation to defend the Bible first and science is second.

Non-creationists are not under a similar obligation. I see it it is a handicap in a discussion of reality.

I am not directing that personally at you.


I meant I want your position on evolution out in the open. Sorry about the confusion. Regardless a discussion on evolution will center on science.

I see this differently but I am not going to worry about it.

An advantage in what way? Numbers?

As you can see, evolutionists are quick to correct each other. I would be roundly criticized if I made a mistake.

I would need to address numerous posts while you would most likely have just mine. If my position was in it anyway.

I concede you have more knowledge of the ToE than all the Creationists on this board except maybe Mark Kennedy.

I am not sure what you are conceding, but we can let it go.

So fire away.

 

[Lilandra]

This is the new thread. I asked that they not overwhelm you with questions and post if they can add something to the discussion. So you will not have to address numerous posts.
http://www.christianforums.com/t4354470-problems-with-cellular-

I see this differently but I am not going to worry about it.


I would need to address numerous posts while you would most likely have just mine. If my position was in it anyway.



I am not sure what you are conceding, but we can let it go.

So fire away.

 

[Oncedeceived]

This is the new thread. I asked that they not overwhelm you with questions and post if they can add something to the discussion. So you will not have to address numerous posts.
http://www.christianforums.com/t4354470-problems-with-cellular-

Why do you feel the need for another the thread? Explain?

 

[Lilandra]

I think that cellular evolution is a topic worthy of its own thread.

Why do you feel the need for another the thread? Explain?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I think that cellular evolution is a topic worthy of its own thread.

Well I think that we already have three threads and it is getting a little ridiculous. I think leaving the thread the way it is should be what we do. Just frame up your argument right here. Thanks.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oncedeceived

No.

Then what is your basis of contention of that line of descent?

You mentioned earlier...
Quote:
Although the first living organism is not included per se in ToE and is under the heading of abiogenesis. I feel this is important. The study of evolution does not concern itself to this so I will eliminate that from my explanations of contentions.

I will use the tree of life as a direction to focus my views and give examples to my conclusions on ToE in relationship to my worldview.

• The three major lineages of the tree.

The relationships between these: Eubacteria, Eukaryotes and Archaea are not definite.

The monophyly of Archaea is uncertain, and recent evidence for ancient lateral transfers of genes indicates that a highly complex model is needed to adequately represent the phylogenetic relationships among the major lineages of Life. This is crucial to molecular evolution.

• Not only are the relationships between the three lineages uncertain but in the Eubacteria lineage itself. I would also add that the flagellum in this taxa has its own set of explanatory problems.

Explain your contention with this branch.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The relationship of the three lineages are in question. There is a gap between eukaryote and parokaryote that is unexplained.

 

[Lilandra]

double post.

 

[Lilandra]

The relationship of the three lineages are in question. There is a gap between eukaryote and parokaryote that is unexplained.

Exactly, what about the "gap" is unexplained?

Not sure why you insist on discussing this in this thread rather than the cellular evolution thread.

http://www.christianforums.com/t4354470-problems-with-cellular-evolution.html

But whatever suits your fancy.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Okay, you continue to ask questions of me yet you do not answer the questions that I have given you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oncedeceived
Where does this fossil record show the relationships among the lineages?

How about a new thread about microbiotic evolution? That way some biologists can chime in.

I will try to frame it with as much as I understand about the topic. We can go from there. It won't be as personal either. So we can just discuss science. When the discussion is finished there. We can move to chordate body plan development.

Both are broad topics, it easier for me to discuss one then the other.


You have not answered my questions nor have you framed it so we can "go" from there.

The relationships of the three domains are uncertain as I have noted. There are no precursers known for Prokaryotes, between Prokaryotes and Eukaryotes there is at least 3 billion years and the evolution of Eukaryotes have several unexplained evolutionary events within just that lineage. You claimed there was evidence I was unaware of, so perhaps this might be the time to bring it forward?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I prefer to stay in this thread. I asked that to be the case yet you ignored it. So I just brought it back here.

(in answer to your question why I wanted the thread here instead)

 

[Oncedeceived]

Originally posted by Chalnoth: Well, I think it makes perfect sense to say that an exact nested hierarchy can only be expected in more complex organisms. The simpler the organism, the more likely that a piece from some other organism will 'just work'. We also know that since sexual reproduction is highly favored in some circumstances as it allows for faster evolution, transfer of genetic material would have been common. So as you go further and further back, it only makes sense that the nested hierarchy will get muddied more and more by parallel transfers of genetic information.

Even in simpler forms there are "rules" that are in force. For something to 'just work' it has to have reason to do so. Sexual reproduction itself is in question to origins at the deepest level of the root, within the domains.

 

[Lilandra]

Okay, you continue to ask questions of me yet you do not answer the questions that I have given you.

Because you continue to provide as little information as possible. I have little to go on. Are you afraid of demonstrating that you don't actually know what you are talking about?

You have not answered my questions nor have you framed it so we can "go" from there.

I got distracted by your mining the Tree of Life Project as your own knowledge.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Because you continue to provide as little information as possible. I have little to go on. Are you afraid of demonstrating that you don't actually know what you are talking about?

I was asked a question, I answered that question. It doesn't take a novel length answer to give my point. Perhaps it is you that doesn't want to demonstrate that you don't actually know what you are talking about since you seem to be reluctant to bring forward the evidence you claimed you had for my contentions? You felt you knew enough by my response that you could deduce that I was "unaware" of the evidence that was out there.

This is probably the longest thread I've ever engaged in that holds absolutely nothing of merit but is loaded with innuendo and accusation. I outlined my view of an area where the scienific evidence is lacking in the systematic cladogram, which is what I was suppose to do. If you can't respond that is hardly my problem.

I got distracted by your mining the Tree of Life Project as your own knowledge.

Well Lily, you might need to reflect on your reason for being here. Although I have apologized, by you being distracted by such a common activity for much of the population on this board might mean that you are not focused enough to stay on task. If you feel you can no longer communicate we might be just wasting our valuable time here.

Perhaps Tomk80 would like to discuss this, it was his question?

 

[Oncedeceived]

bumped for Tomk80.

 

[Tomk80]

bumped for Tomk80.

I'll try to look at this Friday. I'm a bit busy with work and study at this point.

regards,

 

[Oncedeceived]

I'll try to look at this Friday. I'm a bit busy with work and study at this point.

regards,

Okay, I understand busy.

 

[Oncedeceived]

bump

 

[Lilandra]

bump

I don't know if you are still hot to prove that you are as or more knowledgeable than me.

Personally, I was more interested in the science discussion and what your reasoning was behind your contentions of evolution.

I am bored of trying to pry answers out of you. What answers you did give mined my previous posts or web sites.

If the poll was still here, you would see that it is not just my opinion that your knowledge of evolution does not equal or surpass mine.

Instead, you can go on deluding yourself that evolution is somehow insufficient to explain anything critics seize upon at the moment until it is explained. After it is explained there is never a retraction or concession.

What science hasn't explained about evolution will continue to shrink as knowledge grows. Evolutionary critics will have less ground to stand on.

Evolutionary science has more than met the burden of proof even without ID proponents' nitpicks.

This thread hasn't been productive and at this point is a waste of my time.

I will give you the last word.