On the dangers of arguing via quote (YEC-style)

[tas8831]

The quote is accurate, I must have seen that statistic a dozen places, including The Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome, Nature 2005.

So you totally ignored the entire rationale for the OP? Typical.

Evolutionists don't like to admit the3-4% of divergence due to indels. The often cited 98% is simply not true and we've known this practically since the Human Genome project was completed.

What of it? Indels are mutational events - surely you are not the type that wants to believe that if an indel is 1kb in length, then it must count as 1000 mutations?

Its not the creationist who are lieing here. Its Darwinians who don't want to admit the indels because they can be explained.

You have an incredibly inane gift for ignoring the issues and trying to circle back to something you think you have a winning argument on. Pity is, you don't.

Try re-reading the OP.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Okay. I have numbered my points, so we can more easily reference to our worked example. We have basically covered to step 3.
1 Evolutionist: The evolution of microbes to man is a proven fact.

Any evolutionist that claims this is mistaken. Evolution per-se is an observed fact - the heritable characteristics of populations have been observed to change over successive generations. The theory of evolution, including common descent, is not a fact but - as its name suggests - a theory. Scientific theories are never proven, but are well-supported and rigorously tested explanations of observations.

Your example may represent what an ignorant evolutionist has said (although I'd like to see a real example), but it is not a correct representation of evolution science, and in my experience, it doesn't represent what evolutionists in general say. I suspect your recall is faulty.

 

[Brightmoon]

With the caveat that there is so much evidence for evolution/common descent/ natural selection that it’s treated as if it were a simple fact. Add to that, that there isn’t a single iota of refuting evidence. The ball is in the creationist court as far as coming up with evidence for their conjectures.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

With the caveat that there is so much evidence for evolution/common descent/ natural selection that it’s treated as if it were a simple fact. Add to that, that there isn’t a single iota of refuting evidence. The ball is in the creationist court as far as coming up with evidence for their conjectures.

Yes; it's also sometimes the case that the principles underlying a theory are algorithmic, so that if the necessary criteria are satisfied, the results are inevitable; for example, that heritable variation and natural selection will result in evolution. In such cases, the core of the theory is factual and the uncertainties concern the ways the various mechanisms involved play out in the natural world.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Okay. You have just responded item 5, as per the playbook.

There you have it. A single worked example for you, posts 45 - 48.

Using your points from above, this is how the discussion actually played out:

1 Evolutionist: The evolution of microbes to man is a very well supported hypothesis.
2 Creationist: Evolution has never been proven.
3 Evolutionist: That's true. Evolution simply means change over time. Are you denying that changes happen over time?
4 Creationist: Well, anyone can see that changes happen, and this takes time. I renovated my house - changed it over time. No one would deny that.
5 Evolutionist: Indeed. But that's not how biological evolution works. What is to stop lots of small changes over generations adding up to a big difference?
6 Creationist: !? What have changes over time got to do with microbes or men?

See how you ignore what is said and argue against a strawman? And most importantly - you NEVER answer point 5.

 

[tas8831]

. Those minor changes from the parent organism over about 4 billion years is what led to ‘microbes to man’ evolution. Again I’m going to ask , where is the the barrier that would prevent this from happening? You creationists imply that it’s there and by claiming separate creation , you must have some evidence that it’s there. So what is it? And where is your verifiable evidence for it?. The ball has been in your court since the late 1800s . I’m not holding my breath, by the way.

Of note, they apply their 'barrier' rather arbitrarily - they allow, for example, that sea turtles and terrestrial turtles are of the 'same kind' despite numerous morphological differences, but then draw a line between humans and other anthropoids.
If they were not actually serious, it would be sort of funny.

 

[USincognito]

1 Evolutionist: The evolution of microbes to man is a proven fact.

I don't know what an evolutionist is, but none of the science advocates I know say anything like "the evolution of microbes to man is a proven fact".

2 Creationist: Evolution has never been proven.

This is a case of accidentally being right because there is no such thing as scientific proof nor is anything proven scientifically.

3 Evolutionist: Yes it has. Evolution simply means change over time. Are you denying that changes happen over time?

No science advocate who knows their stuff would ever say "evolution simply means change over time". Nearly all of us would describe it exactly as Brightmoon did.

Creationist: Well, anyone can see that changes happen, and this takes time. I renovated my house - changed it over time. No one would deny that.

Red herring. Houses aren't populations of living things that reproduce by passing on genetic material to offspring.

5 Evolutionist: There you have it. Evolution of microbes to man is a proven fact.
6 Creationist: !? What have changes over time got to do with microbes or men?

Congratulations, your straw man is down for the count.

Now - I will respond with 4. 'Of course creationists don't deny that organisms give birth to slightly different organisms. A child may have her mother's hair and father's eyes, for example, but she is still a human, albeit there are minor changes from the parent organisms.'

Evolution is not about individuals. It's about populations and the representation of characteristics (and the genes that create them) over longer periods of time than a single reproductive event.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

Evolution is not about individuals. It's about populations and the representation of characteristics (and the genes that create them) over longer periods of time than a single reproductive event.

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...-quote-yec-style.8077057/page-3#post-73102856

 

[Brightmoon]

You never answered my question. Where’s the barrier that would prevent common descent?

 

[USincognito]

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...-quote-yec-style.8077057/page-3#post-73102856

What does that have to do with my response to your post?

 

[Brightmoon]

You’re the one who claims separate creation . You have no mechanism yet you question “endless forms most beautiful “ . So where’s the barrier that would prevent that?

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

You never answered my question. Where’s the barrier that would prevent common descent?

Where's the bridge that would traverse the abyss of differences between kinds?

What does that have to do with my response to your post?

We've already been through this. Just apply my previous answers to your argument, and save me the time.

 

[Brightmoon]

The abyss between species doesn’t exist . the branching is just due to time and natural selection. “Kind” is creationist newspeak for arbitrary group of animals

 

[USincognito]

We've already been through this. Just apply my previous answers to your argument, and save me the time.

Why would I apply a straw man as a response to my correction and refutation of said straw man?

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

Why would I apply a straw man as a response to my correction and refutation of said straw man?

If you can't see the similarities between your posts and my case-study, I think you may need deeper help than I can offer online.

 

[Jimmy D]

Where's the bridge that would traverse the abyss of differences between kinds?

What do you mean?

 

[tas8831]

if i understand you right- its not the same, since any stone is functional in this case in any step. this isnt true for an half of a biological system.

What is half of a biological system? Do you think that there is only 1 way to clot blood?

 

[Brightmoon]

Where's the bridge that would traverse the abyss of differences between kinds?

We've already been through this. Just apply my previous answers to your argument, and save me the time.

. The differences aren’t as extreme as you think, especially if you look at genes and how they work . The difference between your hand, a mole’s ( any one of 3 different types) forefoot ,and a bat’s wing are mainly due to the size , minor differences in shape and the thickness of the bones . But they are the same bones !

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

. The differences aren’t as extreme as you think, especially if you look at genes and how they work . The difference between your hand, a mole’s ( any one of 3 different types) forefoot ,and a bat’s wing are mainly due to the size , minor differences in shape and the thickness of the bones . But they are the same bones !

Yeah. Same as the differences between a Windows operating system and a Linux operating system. Minimal differences really, if you look at it like that. But evolution of either to the other is still just as impossible.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Okay. I have numbered my points, so we can more easily reference to our worked example. We have basically covered to step 3.
1 Evolutionist: The evolution of microbes to man is a proven fact.
2 Creationist: Evolution has never been proven.
3 Evolutionist: Yes it has. Evolution simply means change over time. Are you denying that changes happen over time?
4 Creationist: Well, anyone can see that changes happen, and this takes time. I renovated my house - changed it over time. No one would deny that.
5 Evolutionist: There you have it. Evolution of microbes to man is a proven fact.
6 Creationist: !? What have changes over time got to do with microbes or men?

The intellectual dishonesty here, almost physically hurts.