Explaining Macroevolution to a creationist

JohnHeintz said:

My disbelief in universal common ancestry has nothing to do with religion , beliefs or religious texts of any kind.

Click to expand...

While I don't wish to contend you're lying - I don't believe you. I think your rejection of common ancestry is specifically motivated by religious belief. I think it's possible you may not realize that, but I find it very hard to believe that you're engaging in scientific skepticism here absent any relevant knowledge.

You assuredly don't hold your own religious beliefs up to the same degree of scrutiny.

JohnHeintz said:

I don't need EVERY detail. However, this is one I need. If there is no possible way to explain how the cells became true multicellular reproductive organisms, then it's pretty much a deal breaker, in my opinion

Click to expand...

A deal-breaker for...? You? But explain why that matters. For every expert topic there are literally billions of people ignorant of the details - their acceptance, rejection, skepticism, belief is completely irrelevant and of no consequence to arbitrating what is empirically true.

You are, of course, permitted to disbelieve for bad reasons just as you believe for bad reasons, but the fact of common ancestry doesn't reside on your acceptance. As with all factual knowledge - your rejection of it just indicates a problem on your part.

JohnHeintz said:

One never changed into a fundamentally different kind? The theory doesn't teach that ?
NONSENSE Aron. It most certainly teaches that living cells became every other living organism on the planet. Many are fundamentally, completely and absolutely different from each other. Except for the fact that they are all made of cells, DNA and such.
It doesn't teach it happened in one generation. It teaches it happened in small increments over vast amounts of time. But it DOES teach it

Click to expand...

Your own post hints at how that isn't actually true, though?

What's fundamentally different about two mastiffs and their shared offspring?

No species is fundamentally different from any of its progenitor clade, because the clade is the foundation. Thus, the theory of evolution most definitely does NOT teach that 'one changed into a fundamentally different kind' (that last word betrays the lie concerning the source of your objection; that's a purely biblical term).

Cells become multicellular organisms by dividing and multiplying - this is an entirely natural process
Simple organisms evolve into more complex ones over time given the right environmental conditions
So the first life form was single cell non self replicating bacteria from which all subsequent life evolved

But evolution is not just a biological process but a physical one too and has been in existence ever since the Big Bang

When physics becomes sufficiently complex it becomes chemistry
When chemistry becomes sufficiently complex it becomes biology

So that is the specific point at which biological evolution occurred
Although evolution in the grand sense has always been occurring

Biological evolution is merely one point in that spectrum of existence
And it occurs because the conditions are optimum for it over sufficient time and allow it to happen
So the simple answer to your question of why cells become more complex is optimisation and time

Cells become multicellular organisms by dividing and multiplying - this is an entirely natural process

Click to expand...

That's not a good description.

The cells which become multicellular organisms by dividing were already components of a multicellular organism - single-celled organisms don't become multicellular organisms by binary fission.

So this doesn't help answer how multicellularity arose.

Sparhafoc said:

While I don't wish to contend you're lying - I don't believe you. I think your rejection of common ancestry is specifically motivated by religious belief. I think it's possible you may not realize that, but I find it very hard to believe that you're engaging in scientific skepticism here absent any relevant knowledge.

You assuredly don't hold your own religious beliefs up to the same degree of scrutiny.




A deal-breaker for...? You? But explain why that matters. For every expert topic there are literally billions of people ignorant of the details - their acceptance, rejection, skepticism, belief is completely irrelevant and of no consequence to arbitrating what is empirically true.

You are, of course, permitted to disbelieve for bad reasons just as you believe for bad reasons, but the fact of common ancestry doesn't reside on your acceptance. As with all factual knowledge - your rejection of it just indicates a problem on your part.

Click to expand...

You have decided what I think. You have decided what I believe. You are so sure that you know about me better than I do myself that you have implied that I'm lying.
There is no further need for you to reply to anything that I write. It would be an incredible waste of time if you continue to decide what I think, say and believe.

You are focusing on the word kind

hackenslash said:

No species is fundamentally different from any of its progenitor clade, because the clade is the foundation. Thus, the theory of evolution most definitely does NOT teach that 'one changed into a fundamentally different kind' (that last word betrays the lie concerning the source of your objection; that's a purely biblical term).

Click to expand...

Greg the Grouper said:

Your own post hints at how that isn't actually true, though?

What's fundamentally different about two mastiffs and their shared offspring?

Click to expand...

That's one generation. How different is a fish, plant, bacteria, bear , bird, snake and human?
You could pick any 2 if you like

JohnHeintz said:

You have decided what I think.

Click to expand...

Have I?

JohnHeintz said:

You have decided what I believe.

Click to expand...

Have I?

JohnHeintz said:

You are so sure that you know about me better than I do myself that you have implied that I'm lying.

Click to expand...

You mean the part where I expressly - EXPRESSLY - stated that I don't think you're lying?

You mean that part?

JohnHeintz said:

There is no further need for you to reply to anything that I write.

Click to expand...

Let's be clear John - I'll decide whether there's a need for me to reply further. Not you.

JohnHeintz said:

It would be an incredible waste of time if you continue to decide what I think, say and believe.

Click to expand...

It was an 'incredible waste of time' before considering how you continually evaded direct questions.

Is this your way of pretending to be hard done by so you don't ever have to address all the information I already provided you and you couldn't even muster the decency to reply to a single question I posed you?

While I don't wish to contend you're lying - I don't believe you. I think your rejection of common ancestry is specifically motivated by religious belief. I think it's possible you may not realize that, but I find it very hard to believe that you're engaging in scientific skepticism here absent any relevant knowledge.

Click to expand...

You are so sure that you know about me better than I do myself that you have implied that I'm lying.

Click to expand...

Mmmhmm John. Have a tug on the other one: it's got bells on.

JohnHeintz said:

You are focusing on the word kind

Click to expand...

That's because it's Biblical terminology - yet we're a) supposedly talking about your scientific skepticism of evolution and b) you had literally just said your objections weren't religious.

JohnHeintz said:

That's one generation. How different is a fish, plant, bacteria, bear , bird, snake and human?
You could pick any 2 if you like

Click to expand...

Or you could engage in evasion.

JohnHeintz said:

That's one generation. How different is a fish, plant, bacteria, bear , bird, snake and human?
You could pick any 2 if you like

Click to expand...

That's completely irrelevant. Evolution doesn't suggest that bacteria bring forth plants.

Parents sire offspring. This is the only instance of life 'bringing forth' life. If parent and offspring aren't fundamentally different kinds, then your characterization of evolution is factually wrong.

Greg the Grouper said:

That's completely irrelevant. Evolution doesn't suggest that bacteria bring forth plants.

Parents sire offspring. This is the only instance of life 'bringing forth' life. If parent and offspring aren't fundamentally different kinds, then your characterization of evolution is factually wrong.

Click to expand...

Who said bacteria bring forth plants ?
I asked how different certain life forms were from each other. If you believe in Universal common ancestry then you believe that single cell organisms became all of these other life forms.
I also never said it happened in one generation from parents to offspring. Everyone knows it allegedly happens in small increments over vast amounts of time.

Sparhafoc said:

Not

Click to expand...

Do whatever you want. This will be the last time I respond to you however.

JohnHeintz said:

Do whatever you want. This will be the last time I respond to you however.

Click to expand...

See, now that's how it actually works.

You don't tell me what to do - but you have every right to do whatever you like.

So, for example, you have every right to ignore direct questions, you have every right to be intentionally evasive so you never have to actually address any substance, and you have every right to pretend to be engaging in good faith discussion with people even as it becomes clearer and clearer that you're not.

Similarly, I have every right to call you out for it. I'll be doing that more from now on - I was politely ignoring your discursive malfeasance before, but no more.

JohnHeintz said:

Who said bacteria bring forth plants ?
I asked how different certain life forms were from each other. If you believe in Universal common ancestry then you believe that single cell organisms became all of these other life forms.
I also never said it happened in one generation from parents to offspring. Everyone knows it allegedly happens in small increments over vast amounts of time.

Click to expand...

JAQing off.

Sparhafoc said:

You assuredly don't hold your own religious beliefs up to the same degree of scrutiny.

Click to expand...

Oh, that's not fair, is it? I challenged your supposed skepticism.

I know - why don't you pretend you're all offended and have a little flounce so you don't have to respond to it?

JohnHeintz said:

You are focusing on the word kind

Click to expand...

No, I'm focussing on your error. However, since you've chosen to focus your entire response on that one thing, I'm highlighting the word 'kind' because it's meaningless.

While others might give you a sop and accept that a kind is something vaguely between species and genus (setting aside that this is fucking stupid, because reality isn't so discrete as to engender a space between genus and species, let alone room for another classification stratum), I will not. it's a meaningless term, and appears nowhere in the primary biological literature except the odd inclusion for completeness of the story, in much the same way we still talk about phlogiston in physics, despite it being an entirelyt made-up concept having no bearing on reality.

Proper classification requires rigour, and 'kind' doesn't cut it. The only motivation for hanging on this bullshit isa to keep your silly masturbation fantasy alive. Sorry, but I assassinate puerile fantasies.

Now that's out of the way, why did you fail to answer the thing I was actually focussing on, namely your ignorant rectally extracted caricature of what evolutionary theory actually predicts?

Here's the over-riding point you're missing in your hubristic presumption that the universe needs to be understandable to you: if evolutionary theory predicts it, it's been observed.

That's the bit that deniers never want to face up to. Evolution has been observed occurring at every level predicted by the theory. It's a fact. Your god is dead (actually, your god never existed, provably, but I'd hate to be accused of being too focussed on minutiae at the expense of missing the whole argument).