The light of evolution: What would be lost

[Givemeareason]

Instead of arguing the Light of Evolution you would do better to argue the Darkness of Creationism as I have done in my thread on Creationism and Self Deceit.

 

[MikeEnders]

The theory of evolution proposes that the accumulation of changes from microevolution add up to macroevolution which is why they are discussed as being one in the same.

Apply some basic logic. If both Creationist and Darwinists agree on microevolution how can anything related to microevolution be argued as against Creationists or as promoting the idea the evolution is superior to creationism. Unfortunately it seems you cannot get past your emotions to see basic common sense. In order to show a superiority you would have to stick exclusively to what creationists call macroevolution (which they do not accept)

IF Sifter is the best you have then I rest my case since you have little or nothing.

 

[Loudmouth]

Apply some basic logic. If both Creationist and Darwinists agree on microevolution . . .

It is your turn to apply some basic logic. You don't get to change the other person's position. If you are arguing against the theory of evolution AS UNDERSTOOD BY SCIENTISTS, then you need to use that theory, not your strawman version of that theory.

What you are using is a logical fallacy known as the Strawman Fallacy.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

In order to show a superiority you would have to stick exclusively to what creationists call macroevolution (which they do not accept)

We already agree that the creationist strawman version of evolution is wrong. You are trying to argue against the real theory, so that is the one you need to use.

IF Sifter is the best you have then I rest my case since you have little or nothing.

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

 

[MikeEnders]

It is your turn to apply some basic logic. You don't get to change the other person's position. If you are arguing against the theory of evolution AS UNDERSTOOD BY SCIENTISTS, then you need to use that theory, not your strawman version of that theory.

You are lost in space. the title of the thread is what would be lost without evolution and the OP makes it clear he is talking about Evolution as opposed to Creationism. If you took away evolutionists you STILL would have creationists holding to micro evolution. To claim that you would lose benefits from microevolution theory when creationist still would hold to it is just stupid and pretty much marks you as someone who does not have a clue about logic much less what a strawman argument is

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

Thats about the level of maturity I thought you had. thanks for the confirmation. I wouldn't be surprised if you thought you spelt that right

 

[sfs]

incidentally for those trying to make it out like Whois has no point whatsoever - although I never build my case on personalities or authority figures - I don't see how any of you can make that case when he mentions Noble and Coyne himself has a conniption about Noble's claims

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpres...the-modern-theory-of-evolution-is-in-tatters/

IF Noble is so much inline with neo darwinism then what is Coyne so upset over? Obviously Whois has a valid point although as I stated I don't rest my case on authority

I don't get it. You don't rest your case on authority, but you agree that someone else has a valid point when they rest their case on authority? Either it's a valid argument or it isn't. (As it happens, Noble isn't an authority on evolution, so it's not clear why anyone should care about his opinion.)

 

[Loudmouth]

You are lost in space. the title of the thread is what would be lost without evolution and the OP makes it clear he is talking about Evolution as opposed to Creationism. If you took away evolutionists you STILL would have creationists holding to micro evolution.

But you wouldn't have macroevolution as described by scientists which would take away some of our scientific knowledge.

 

[sfs]

Apply some basic logic. If both Creationist and Darwinists agree on microevolution how can anything related to microevolution be argued as against Creationists or as promoting the idea the evolution is superior to creationism.

The examples I've given of the usefulness of evolution depend entirely on macroevolution.

IF Sifter is the best you have then I rest my case since you have little or nothing.

What case? You haven't made any case at all.

 

[bhsmte]

I don't know where you learned logic or English from but saying someone has a point does not mean that they (or I) rest their entire case on that point. You can even accept honestly that someone has a point on an issue even if you do no t agree with their overall premise. the point that Whois has right is that Noble does indicate he is not in line with Darwinists like Coyne. To claim the Whois is wrong to say so is just lying

A bit more to it than that, when you look at the totality of what the poster you mention continues to claim, from what 2 guys say.

If you want the full picture of what I state above, go back and review some of her posts.

Not very Christian to insult SFS either.

 

[Loudmouth]

<STAFF EDIT>
What you loose is the scientific knowledge gained by the evolutionary relationships discovered between divergent species.

 

[bhsmte]

What you loose is the scientific knowledge gained by the evolutionary relationships discovered between divergent species.

I think we may have a sock.

 

[sfs]

I don't know where you learned logic or English from but saying someone has a point does not mean that they (or I) rest their entire case on that point. You can even accept honestly that someone has a point on an issue even if you do no t agree with their overall premise. the point that Whois has right is that Noble does indicate he is not in line with Darwinists like Coyne. To claim the Whois is wrong to say so is just lying

Do you agree that whois's citation of Noble constitutes a valid argument against evolution or not?

 

[MikeEnders]

The examples I've given of the usefulness of evolution depend entirely on macroevolution.

thats just another lie. The first video relates several places to merely microevolution. Maybe you should go watch the videos yourself and yes . I will call a lie when I see it. Jesus did no different and atheists telling me what is Christian and unchristian is pretty much nothing more than amusing to me

 

[sfs]

thats just another lie. The first video relates several places to merely microevolution

Since I didn't post the first video (and in fact haven't even looked at it), your response would seem a trifle misplaced.

 

[MikeEnders]

What you loose is the scientific knowledge gained by the evolutionary relationships discovered between divergent species.

Oh so when you lose evolution you lose just the understanding of evolution. Thats even deeper.

 

[MikeEnders]

Since I didn't post the first video (and in fact haven't even looked at it), your response would seem a trifle misplaced.

since you have been in agreement with the op from the very first page and have offered nothing more than we would lose the understanding of evolution if we lost evolution (similar to your comrade) its perfectly on target. Its your own responsibility if you agree to an OP without reading or listening to it

 

[Loudmouth]

Oh so when you lose evolution you lose just the understanding of evolution. Thats even deeper.

That is not what I said.

 

[MikeEnders]

I think we may have a sock.

Thats actually quite hilarious. You should do stand up comedy. An atheist claiming a christian posting on a christian forum would be be a sock. Thats perfectly trollish in a way few trolls can attain to . Take a bow. You have perfected the art of trolling

 

[MikeEnders]

That is not what I said.

That exactly what you said. Doesn't matter to me that you will deny you tripped over your own words.

 

[Loudmouth]

That exactly what you said.

I am telling you, it isn't. You have erected another strawman.

Doesn't matter to me that you will deny you tripped over your own words.

You aren't using my words.

 

[sfs]

since you have been in agreement with the op from the very first page and have offered nothing more than we would lose the understanding of evolution if we lost evolution (similar to your comrade) its perfectly on target. Its your own responsibility if you agree to an OP without reading or listening to it

In this thread, I offered two quite specific uses for common ancestry: determination of the ancestral allele at a variant locus, and determination of the range over which mutation rates remain similar. Both are practical, real-world uses of macroevolution. I have never said that we would lose the understanding of evolution if we lost evolution. I have made no comment on the accuracy of the material presented in the OP. Would you care to comment on what I've actually said in this thread, rather than on the fantasy things you've made up for me to say? Preferably comments more substantive than your accusation of lying turned out to be, I hasten to add.