Is this for real?

[eleos1954]

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. How is what you just wrote relevant to biogeography?

Yes, I could say that they tend to. (In fact, I just did say that they tend to.) In lots and lots and lots of cases. That's the fact, and it's a fact that is explained by common descent and that is not explained by special creation. That's why it's evidence for common descent.

A taxonomist decides whether to recognize a subspecies or not. A common criterion for a subspecies is its ability of interbreeding with a different subspecies of the same species and producing fertile offspring. In the wild, subspecies do not interbreed due to their geographic isolation and sexual selection.

biogeography - the branch of biology that deals with the geographical distribution of plants and animals.

 

[USincognito]

Why does he keep posting definitions as if we don't already know what we're talking about instead of actually responding to our questions?

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

Why are you spreading falsehoods?

Why do you accuse me of doing something I am not?

 

[sfs]

Why do you accuse me of doing something I am not?

He didn't. You said that "Evolutionists long ago stripped the requirement for evidence from Evolutionism, to keep their faith alive." Your statement was false -- obviously and completely false. Biologists write popular books of evidence for evolution. They write textbooks with evidence for evolution. They write blogs devoted to evidence for evolution. They provide court testimony about evidence for evolution. They write magazine articles about evidence for evolution. Google "evidence" and "evolution" and you'll get 235 million hits. The only way to make your statement with a straight face is to have never looked at what scientists are actually doing and saying.

 

[USincognito]

Why do you accuse me of doing something I am not?

Because you are.
"Evolutionists" aren't really a thing.
Science advocates, both professional and layman are constantly looking for and at the evidence supporting evolution.
Evolution is a fact and the theory of evolution explains it, it's not a "faith". There were a lot of falsehoods on one sentence.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

Because you are. "Evolutionists" aren't really a thing. Science advocates, both professional and layman are constantly looking for and at the evidence supporting evolution. Evolution is a fact and the theory of evolution explains it, it's not a "faith". You packed a lot of falsehoods into one sentence.

Evolutionists are adherents to the belief in Evolutionism. Evolutionism is the belief that all living things share a common ancestory. Lol. I really don't know where you Evolutionists get some of your facts, but Evolutionism certainly isn't one of them.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

He didn't. You said that "Evolutionists long ago stripped the requirement for evidence from Evolutionism, to keep their faith alive." Your statement was false -- obviously and completely false. Biologists write popular books of evidence for evolution. They write textbooks with evidence for evolution. They write blogs devoted to evidence for evolution. They provide court testimony about evidence for evolution. They write magazine articles about evidence for evolution. Google "evidence" and "evolution" and you'll get 235 million hits. The only way to make your statement with a straight face is to have never looked at what scientists are actually doing and saying.

Okay. I'm going to go with Poe for this one.

 

[USincognito]

Evolutionists are adherents to the belief in Evolutionism.

So they are things that exist only in the imagination then.

Evolutionism is the belief that all living things share a common ancestory.

No, that is the fact of evolution which is described by the theory of evolution. The childish need of Creationists to call facts and science "belief" just shows how weak their position is and that they cannot actually address the facts and evidence supporting evolution.

Lol. I really don't know where you Evolutionists get some of your facts, but Evolutionism certainly isn't one of them.

Again, since "Evolutionism" exists only in the imagination there's no real reason for me to bother with it.

 

[USincognito]

deleted

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

Again, since those things exist only in your imagination there's no real reason for me to bother with it.

I guess if these things are only in my imagination, you needn't reply?

Someone doesn't know what Poe means either.

I'm wondering whether you are one. Your support for Evolutionism is akin to the support I would expect from one sincerely satirising the absurd belief.

 

[HitchSlap]

Okay. I'm going to go with Poe for this one.

Is this a confession?

 

[HitchSlap]

I guess if these things are only in my imagination, you needn't reply?

I'm wondering whether you are one. Your support for Evolutionism is akin to the support I would expect from one sincerely satirising the absurd belief.

I understand how being a YEC with zero understanding of ToE might lead one to think it’s absurd, especially if your pastor said this from the pulpit last Sunday. But you’d be wrong. Imagine if I said the whole aerospace industry was absurd and planes shouldn’t fly.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

I understand how being a YEC with zero understanding of ToE might lead one to think it’s absurd, especially if your pastor said this from the pulpit last Sunday. But you’d be wrong. Imagine if I said the whole aerospace industry was absurd and planes shouldn’t fly.

It'd be more like if you said the whole aerospace industry occured through Evolutionism. Blatantly false, but difficult to disprove, as Evolutionism is a religious belief, not a scientific theory, and constantly evolving like the creatures in it's doctrines.

 

[HitchSlap]

It'd be more like if you said the whole aerospace industry occured through Evolutionism. Blatantly false, but difficult to disprove, as Evolutionism is a religious belief, not a scientific theory, and constantly evolving like the creatures in it's doctrines.

Poe.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

Poe.

We could let the debate degenerate into a series of accusations, with each of us accusing the other of being Edgar Allen's surname, but I shall refrain.

 

[HitchSlap]

We could let the debate degenerate into a series of accusations, with each of us accusing the other of being Edgar Allen's surname, but I shall refrain.

Lol

Google Poe’s Law.

 

[sfs]

We could let the debate degenerate into a series of accusations,

Your contribution started with an accusation, and has consisted of nothing else since then.

Anyway, here is one place among many, many such that offers evidence for evolution. Your claim is that the page I linked to doesn't exist. That seems like a pretty silly claim to make.

 

[Tolworth John]

Funny you mention that - you see, it is a parody of a creationist claim that I saw on this very forum, written by a creationist that boasts of having a high IQ. He had written that 'creation is the evidence for creationism'.


Do you agree with that standard of evidence?

Regarding my acceptance of 'real evidence', what is your real evidence that supports the quote in the OP?

thanks

It is not the evidence that is the problem, but the presupositions that govern how that evidence is viewed.
For example the current scientific view is that the universe has a beginning.
But if something has a begining it also has a cause.
The presuposition of evolution believing atheists is there is no God.
So any suggestion that a 'supernatural enterty' cause the universe to beging is ruled out without even concidering the idea.

 

[Tolworth John]

ABSTRACT
... Here, via microarray analysis of all P450s in Drosophila melanogaster, we show that DDT-R, a gene conferring resistance to DDT, is associated with overtranscription of a single cytochrome P450 gene, Cyp6g1. Transgenic analysis ofCyp6g1 shows that overtranscription of this gene alone is both necessary and sufficient for resistance. Resistance and up-regulation in Drosophila populations are associated with a single Cyp6g1 allele that has spread globally. This allele is characterized by the insertion of an Accord transposable element into the 5′ end of the Cyp6g1 gene.

A you have said it is a change in the allele regulating the amount produced. It is not new information

 

[Tolworth John]

hen surely you can provide some clear-cut quotes that support your assertion?

I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them.
Dr Colin Patterson, who was at the time the senior paleontologist (fossil expert) at the prestigious British Museum of Natural History.
went on to say:-Yet Gould [Stephen J. Gould—the now deceased professor of paleontology from Harvard University] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils.