Micro and macro evolution explained.

[Subduction Zone]

I do not disagree with your statement, but that is not the tone or content of the video. Even the cartoons playing in the background were chosen to be inflammatory mocking of the christian religion rather than supporting any argument for some scientific truth.

Unfortunately for Christians most of the opposition to reality has come from them. They are not in a very good position to complain. Perhaps it is time to swallow a bit of that pride.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What real evidence is there that plants and animals diverged from a common ancestor? Is that an Evolutionary article of faith?

There you go again, that is rather hypocritical. You complain when Aron supposedly made fun of your faith and then you post a clear falsehood, and an indirect insult to your own beliefs as if you were making a point.

Once again, the evidence is endless. It is hard to know where to begin. You seem to think that there is significant missing evidence. Why do you believe that?

 

[atpollard]

They have proven their case when it comes to human evolution. What evidence do you think is lacking?

So it is only Adam and Eve that you have a problem with.
There had to be a first Homo Sapien Sapien, so why can’t we name him Adam? Although science does not require a god for the first “Adam” to exist, will science survive if it turns out that there is a God that created the first Homo Sapien Sapien ... who was somehow different from all the evolutionary ancestors that had come before?

As far as human evolution goes, some of it is pretty solid and some is based on far too incomplete skeletons. The reconstruction “sketches” are too reliant on artistic bias since the unknown parts could mean the being was anything from a strange chimp with a rock to an ugly man with a spear and clothes. I agree that the evidence suggests a relationship is “more likely that not” but the overlapping dates and interbreeding (like Neanderthal) suggest something more complex that the simple linear evolution trees.

There is some similarities between humans and other primates, but there is something utterly different and unique to humans that makes us more than “just another mammal”. So I will not reject human evolution, but I cannot reject the implications of Genesis as evidences in our empirical interactions with other people and animals.

 

[atpollard]

Once again, the evidence is endless.

Really, you have “endless” evidence of plant and animal divergence. OK, you have captured my interest. Let’s see some of it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So it is only Adam and Eve that you have a problem with.
There had to be a first Homo Sapien Sapien, so why can’t we name him Adam? Although science does not require a god for the first “Adam” to exist, will science survive if it turns out that there is a God that created the first Homo Sapien Sapien ... who was somehow different from all the evolutionary ancestors that had come before?

As far as human evolution goes, some of it is pretty solid and some is based on far too incomplete skeletons. The reconstruction “sketches” are too reliant on artistic bias since the unknown parts could mean the being was anything from a strange chimp with a rock to an ugly man with a spear and clothes. I agree that the evidence suggests a relationship is “more likely that not” but the overlapping dates and interbreeding (like Neanderthal) suggest something more complex that the simple linear evolution trees.

There is some similarities between humans and other primates, but there is something utterly different and unique to humans that makes us more than “just another mammal”. So I will not reject human evolution, but I cannot reject the implications of Genesis as evidences in our empirical interactions with other people and animals.

No, there did not "have to be a first". Populations evolve. Not individuals. There was no "first human" since there were always a population of all ages and both sexes. There is no single 'human' mutation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Really, you have “endless” evidence of plant and animal divergence. OK, you have captured my interest. Let’s see some of it.

I posted an excellent example of divergence that leads to speciation. Or are you making an unreasonable request. Do you want to know exactly when plants and animals diverged? If you do you once again disqualify yourself from demanding evidence by not understand what qualifies as evidence.

 

[atpollard]

No, there did not "have to be a first". Populations evolve. Not individuals. There was no "first human" since there were always a population of all ages and both sexes. There is no single 'human' mutation.

So there was no first Carrot that had the Orange mutation? (And you wonder why we cannot understand or do not believe scientists when your arguments are self-contradictory based on what point you want to make at the moment).

 

[Subduction Zone]

So there was no first Carrot that had the Orange mutation? (And you wonder why we cannot understand or do not believe scientists when your arguments are self-contradictory based on what point you want to make at the moment).

Is that what makes a carrot a carrot? That is a rather poor basis for denying that something is a carrot. The purple carrot was the predecessor of the orang carrot. Are you now trying to deny that these are not carrots:

 

[atpollard]

I posted an excellent example of divergence that leads to speciation. Or are you making an unreasonable request. Do you want to know exactly when plants and animals diverged? If you do you once again disqualify yourself from demanding evidence by not understand what qualifies as evidence.

fallacy of illicit transference

 

[Subduction Zone]

fallacy of illicit transference

Nope, but try again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@atpollard we should go over the concept of evidence so that you can make reasonable demands. Right now since you appear not to understand the concept, or understand what evolution predicts, you have not been able to demand proper evidence.

 

[atpollard]

Is that what makes a carrot a carrot? That is a rather poor basis for denying that something is a carrot. The purple carrot was the predecessor of the orang carrot. Are you now trying to deny that these are not carrots

You are playing a shell game with the goal posts in this conversation. According the the OP video, the carrot you posted a picture of evolved into the modern orange carrot making them two different species. (Like the divergence between Homo Sapien Neanderthal and Homo Sapien Sapien). Yet when I point out that there must have been a FIRST orange carrot, as a parallel illustration to my claim that there must have been a FIRST Homo Sapien Sapien, you shuffle the shells again and tell me they are all carrots.

That is very CREATIONIST of you, yes carrots are all carrots, primates are all primates and humans are all humans ... Just like God made them.

Goodbye.

 

[Job 33:6]

You are playing a shell game with the goal posts in this conversation. According the the OP video, the carrot you posted a picture of evolved into the modern orange carrot making them two different species. (Like the divergence between Homo Sapien Neanderthal and Homo Sapien Sapien). Yet when I point out that there must have been a FIRST orange carrot, as a parallel illustration to my claim that there must have been a FIRST Homo Sapien Sapien, you shuffle the shells again and tell me they are all carrots.

That is very CREATIONIST of you, yes carrots are all carrots, primates are all primates and humans are all humans ... Just like God made them.

Goodbye.

I would agree that at some point there must have been a very first carrot with an "orange mutation".

If we consider humans to have X collection of specific genes, then some human (of a larger population of hominids), or one homo sapiens sapiens of a larger population of homo sapiens, would have to meet that definition before others did.

Kind of like with a chicken and an egg. The egg existed since the days of reptiles, but at some point in time (regardless of if we could give an exact day) a chicken had to be born, which would then allow for the first true chicken egg to be laid. And no matter how difficult it is for us to pinpoint this moment in time due to the molecular nature of mutations, it had to happen at some time. Before a population of chickens existed, there must have been one animal (that if seen today maybe we wouldn't even call it a chicken), that had the first mutation that separated it from it's ancestral species, that fixated that then allowed for the rising of a chicken population

It sounds like that is what you're describing.

 

[Job 33:6]

I can’t speak to the content at 6 minutes, but the first 90 seconds is dedicated to insulting his opponents without actually presenting any information at all.

I think he found three different ways of saying that all people of faith are stupid in a single 60 second block of his opening. That sort of calls into question whether he really desires to explain anything to anyone.

This is an atheist “preaching to the choir” presentation, not really an attempt to communicate “across the aisle”.

Sorry, I find evolution plausible (but irrelevant to Civil Engineering) and I just found the presenter to be an arrogant ass. I would walk out on him as quickly as I would walk out on Benny Hinn.

I didn't find it offensive. I think that its only offensive if perhaps you feel like you can relate to the particular group of Christians that he is referring to.

The "harshness" of his words is a product of the very thing he is describing. Which is most easily described as denial of physical reality by biblical literalists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are playing a shell game with the goal posts in this conversation. According the the OP video, the carrot you posted a picture of evolved into the modern orange carrot making them two different species. (Like the divergence between Homo Sapien Neanderthal and Homo Sapien Sapien). Yet when I point out that there must have been a FIRST orange carrot, as a parallel illustration to my claim that there must have been a FIRST Homo Sapien Sapien, you shuffle the shells again and tell me they are all carrots.

That is very CREATIONIST of you, yes carrots are all carrots, primates are all primates and humans are all humans ... Just like God made them.

Goodbye.

Sorry you screwed up. You acted as if the color orange made a carrot a carrot. You were shown to be wrong. Please do not make any false accusations.

 

[atpollard]

Sorry you screwed up.

I did "screw up". I wasted time expecting a real conversation with you. I am a little older and much wiser for the experience. Good riddance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did "screw up". I wasted time expecting a real conversation with you. I am a little older and much wiser for the experience. Good riddance.

The dishonesty was not on my part. And it does not look as if you wanted a conversation. Your poor argument attested to that. As with many people with demonstrably false beliefs you are not looking for evidence, since you appear to know that all of the evidence is against you. You are merely looking for an excuse to believe. That leads to false beliefs.

I hope that you are aware that most Christians do accept the fact of evolution and do not find it a barrier to their beliefs. Why do you oppose the theory when all of the evidence tells us that you are wrong?

 

[Job 33:6]

No, there did not "have to be a first". Populations evolve. Not individuals. There was no "first human" since there were always a population of all ages and both sexes. There is no single 'human' mutation.

I would agree with the idea that the other person is presenting. I agree that in technical terms nobody is going to be able to say that there ever was a first human, but rather a population came to be first, then the term "human" was applied to it.

But if we did define people as individuals with specific genes or a specific group of genes, then at some point in time, one Individual animal would acquire that group of genes before it reached a general population. And that individual could be said to be the first true human. Regardless of what that combination of genes might be.

If we believe that humans exist now but didn't exist in the past, that beginning had to start somewhere. And if we say that this species is defined by X group of genes, then it follows that X group of genes wouldn't necessarily mutate in 100 or 1000 individuals all at once, but rather would come to be at a particular point in time in which a mutation occurred in an individual.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I would agree with the idea that the other person is presenting. I agree that in technical terms nobody is going to be able to say that there ever was a first human, but rather a population came to be first, then the term "human" was applied to it.

But if we did define people as individuals with specific genes or a specific group of genes, then at some point in time, one Individual animal would acquire that group of genes before it reached a general population. And that individual could be said to be the first true human. Regardless of what that combination of genes might be.

If we believe that humans exist now but didn't exist in the past, that beginning had to start somewhere. And if we say that this species is defined by X group of genes, then it follows that X group of genes wouldn't necessarily mutate in 100 or 1000 individuals all at once, but rather would come to be at a particular point in time in which a mutation occurred in an individual.

The problem is that scientists will simply not agree on what specific genes make a person human. Or what makes a carrot a carrot. Now one can have an artificial example but that is pointless. And worse yet it is all but guaranteed that even with a pointless definition there is no way to know exactly when that first gene appeared.

It is a time wasting argument and that is all. At best it is disingenuous as a result. It was an attempted waste of time since he is merely looking for excuses. That is not an honest way to have a discussion.

 

[Job 33:6]

The problem is that scientists will simply not agree on what specific genes make a person human. Or what makes a carrot a carrot. Now one can have an artificial example but that is pointless. And worse yet it is all but guaranteed that even with a pointless definition there is no way to know exactly when that first gene appeared.

It is a time wasting argument and that is all. At best it is disingenuous as a result. It was an attempted waste of time since he is merely looking for excuses. That is not an honest way to have a discussion.

Yea, I guess it depends on what the person's goal is as to whether or not it is meaningful.

Whether a human with a specific set of genes began to exist at some unknown time in the past 10 million years in some unknown place potentially in Africa doesn't really say much about whether or not people evolved from 4 legged mammals or reptiles etc. Or if people evolved from more primitive or less derived apes.

It's more of a thought exercise than anything.