Explaining Macroevolution to a creationist

JohnHeintz said:

No lie . It says true multicellular reproductive animal. Are we saying that I didn't mean "sexually reproductive" from the beginning.
It's a game semantics then. Plus, is that the ONLY time I wrote this question? Or did you find one that specifically doesn't contain the word "sexually". Either way. There is no dishonesty.

Click to expand...

Yes, there is dishonesty. And if anyone is playing semantics, it is you. You stated, from the start, you wanted examples of single cellular life becoming multicellular life, leading to reproduction. That has been satisfied. Now you are claiming that you want it to be sexual reproduction. I quoted you, and you did not say sexually reproductive. Stop being dishonest and own up to the fact that you are now shifting the goalposts.

JohnHeintz said:

It also 100% states not to give colony, biofilm or mold examples. That I know this "type of multicellular organism " exists.
However , they are just a group moving together. They can and do return to their individual state from time to time.
So again. No lying. Just misinterpretation of the text

Click to expand...

No one gave you that. What Dragan Glas and I presented on this thread are not colonies, biofilms, or mold. Dragan Glas even went into detail as to why what he gave you was not a biofilm.

At this point, you are just lying to yourself. To what end, I am not sure.

he_who_is_nobody said:

Yes, there is dishonesty. And if anyone is playing semantics, it is you. You stated, from the start, you wanted examples of single cellular life becoming multicellular life, leading to reproduction. That has been satisfied. Now you are claiming that you want it to be sexual reproduction. I quoted you, and you did not say sexually reproductive. Stop being dishonest and own up to the fact that you are now shifting the goalposts.

No one gave you that. What Dragan Glas and I presented on this thread are not colonies, biofilms, or mold. Dragan Glas even went into detail as to why what he gave you was not a biofilm.

At this point, you are just lying to yourself. To what end, I am not sure.

Click to expand...

Unreal. This should be renamed "league of know it alls". Or "league of crying babies".
I explained it. You just want to prattle on.
You just don't like the fact that algae forming a colony doesn't mean squat. And there are other times I posted the question stating "like worms , trilobite or fish". Another where I say it won't lead to bones, organs, eyes and such"
You picked out the one where you could argue the words used instead of the ideas behind them. Maybe you need to turn your powerful insight inward and see if you're being totally honest.

I have grown tired of the accusations of lying.
I haven't lied. There's no need to.
I have definitely grown tired of profanity and childish comments. This is supposed to be an adult discussion site.
Also, I am disappointed that Aron has failed his challenge. I was interested in what he had to say.
So. This will be the last reply.
Take care guys.

JohnHeintz said:

Unreal. This should be renamed "league of know it alls". Or "league of crying babies".

Click to expand...

Cute.

JohnHeintz said:

I explained it. You just want to prattle on.

Click to expand...

I want to have a discussion. You refuse to acknowledge what has already been provided.

JohnHeintz said:

You just don't like the fact that algae forming a colony doesn't mean squat.

Click to expand...

Nobody gave you that. This is how you are lying. Again, what Dragan Glas and I gave you is not algae forming colonies. Stop being dishonest.

JohnHeintz said:

And there are other times I posted the question stating "like worms , trilobite or fish".

Click to expand...

I did, in fact, address that. But, unfortunately, you never responded to it, probably because it was exposing your game.

JohnHeintz said:

Another where I say it won't lead to bones, organs, eyes and such"

Click to expand...

And that was also addressed, and you flat out lied about what was in that article.

JohnHeintz said:

You picked out the one where you could argue the words used instead of the ideas behind them. Maybe you need to turn your powerful insight inward and see if you're being totally honest.

Click to expand...

What you asked for was provided even though you thought it was impossible. Then when you saw that we actually could address your questions, you just started pretending as if your questions were never answered.

JohnHeintz said:

I have grown tired of the accusations of lying.

Click to expand...

Then stop lying. Or at least stop making it so easy to catch you in a lie.

JohnHeintz said:

I haven't lied. There's no need to.

Click to expand...

I demonstrated that you lied just earlier today.

JohnHeintz said:

I have definitely grown tired of profanity and childish comments. This is supposed to be an adult discussion site.

Click to expand...

The inevitable clutching at pearls turns into pearls before swine.

JohnHeintz said:

Also, I am disappointed that Aron has failed his challenge. I was interested in what he had to say.

Click to expand...

And we have all grown accustomed to AronRa's line of questioning, leading to cognitive dissonance in his interlocutor. Which in turn leads the interlocutor to stop answering direct questions.

JohnHeintz said:

So. This will be the last reply.
Take care guys.

Click to expand...

JohnHeintz said:

I have grown tired of the accusations of lying.

Click to expand...

/shrug

We all know the answer to that:

Stop lying!

JohnHeintz said:

I haven't lied. There's no need to.

Click to expand...

Numerous people have cited evidence of you doing so.

And that, of course, isn't taking into account how you STILL haven't answered any questions.

JohnHeintz said:

I have definitely grown tired of profanity and childish comments.

Click to expand...

And I suppose you think we're not tired of dishonest creationists?

JohnHeintz said:

This is supposed to be an adult discussion site.

Click to expand...

Says who?

And you don't get to call other people childish when you're practicing the 'tell him I'm not talking to him' bullshit, John.

JohnHeintz said:

Also, I am disappointed that Aron has failed his challenge.

Click to expand...

Liar.

See? When you lie, you get accused of lying. When you keep lying, it becomes 'liar'.

JohnHeintz said:

I was interested in what he had to say.

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone believes you really.

JohnHeintz said:

So. This will be the last reply.
Take care guys.

Click to expand...

Buh bye now.

Incidentally, this is called 'flouncing' and it's just about equally childish as telling people you're not speaking to them.

We all know you weren't here in good faith, John. It was obvious throughout.

JohnHeintz said:

Unreal. This should be renamed "league of know it alls". Or "league of crying babies".
I explained it. You just want to prattle on.
You just don't like the fact that algae forming a colony doesn't mean squat. And there are other times I posted the question stating "like worms , trilobite or fish". Another where I say it won't lead to bones, organs, eyes and such"
You picked out the one where you could argue the words used instead of the ideas behind them. Maybe you need to turn your powerful insight inward and see if you're being totally honest.

Click to expand...

What a lying tosspot.

Well, we really have been blessed with narcissistic crackpots in recent weeks.

Sparhafoc said:

Well, we really have been blessed with narcissistic crackpots in recent weeks.

Click to expand...

Be glad that the other one is banned till August the 16rh.

Is it weird for someone to flounce and then hang around viewing the thread.... maybe checking out whether they got the emotional hit they were hoping for?

Anyone called Shaker's yet?

Shaker's Law states that:

Those who egregiously announce their imminent departure from an Internet discussion forum almost never actually leave.

In other words, contributors who made a considerable public song and dance about their exit from such a forum rarely leave and remain after all, thriving on the attention they receive.

Click to expand...

Sparhafoc said:

Anyone called Shaker's yet?

Click to expand...

I was just, funnily enough, trawling my image archive...

Mr Heintz messaged me last night asking me to create a whole new thread and start all over again. I've chosen to resume this one from essentially the beginning, since the last one went nowhere.

Let me make clear, science is not a belief system. We don’t care what you believe. All that matters is why you believe it, what was the REASON leading you to that conclusion? That's why an unsupported opinion of "probably" doesn't answer anything. I want to see the goal posts anchored firmly. So remember to explain how you know, or why you think whatever your answers are.

As the topic is macroevolution, then, assuming that you understand microevolution well enough to accept all its mechanisms, including genetic drift, then do you accept that all the hundreds of domestic dog breeds are biologically related to each other? Do you accept that all domestic dog breeds are biologically related to wolves, having been derived from them? Do you accept that all domestic dog breeds and wolves are biologically related to the North American coyote, the South American bush dog, the Australian dingo, the Asian raccoon dog and the African painted dog? Regardless whether or not they interbreed and "bring forth" fertile offspring?



Similarly, do you accept that domestic house cats are biologically related to each other, and to other species of feral felines? Do you accept that all feline species are related to each other? Do you accept that all panthers are related to each other? Do you accept all cat species, including the extinct scimitar cats, are all biologically related to each other?



Do you accept that all of these cervids are biologically related to each other? Meaning that they all evolved from a common ancestor? Even though most of them cannot interbreed?



Do you accept macroevolution as being the best, if not only, explanation for the evident transformations indicated in the chronological sequences in ichthyosaurs and mosasaurs depicted below?




You can say yes to all of the above, and we can then end the discussion now, with your admission that I don't need to convince you of what already fully accept. What I am looking for in all of these is the moment when you say no, and point to whichever things you do not accept as related. Be sure to explain your reason why, and be ready to discuss how we could test for, correct, or confirm whichever of these relationships you object to.

As I said in the Phylogeny Challenge:

Creationists usually accept that taxonomy is superficially accurate, but they’ll only concede that to a degree, because they insist that their god miraculously conjured a series of definitely different kinds of animals, which were each specially created separate from one another. Creationists allow that each of these kinds have since diversified—but only within mysterious limits that they refuse to rigidly define—and they say that no lineage can be traced beyond their alleged original archetypes. However, they’re unable to identify what those kinds are, how many there are, or how they could be recognized. I would challenge them to show me their mystic divisions among the following taxa.

• Are mallards related to pochards, wood ducks, and muscovies?
• Are all ducks also related to geese and all other anseriformes?
• Are anseriformes related to galliformes and other neognathes?
• Are neognathes related to paleognathes?
• Are any extant birds related to hesperornis, ichthyornis, enantiornis, or other euornithes?
• Are euorniths related to confuciusornis or archaeopteryx?
• Are all early aves related to microraptor, velociraptor, or other nonavian dinosaurs?
• Are dinosaurs related to pterosaurs, phytosaurs, and other archosaurs?

If evolution from common ancestry is not true and some flavor of special creation of as-yet unidentified kinds is true, then there would be some surface levels in a cladogram where you would accept an actual evolutionary ancestry, but there must also be subsequent levels in that twin-nested hierarchy where life-forms would no longer be the same kind and wouldn’t be biologically related anymore. At that point, they would be magically created separate kinds, and distinctly unique from those listed around it as well as those apparently ancestral to it.

So . . .
• Are Bengal tigers related to Burmese tigers and all other tiger species?
• Are all known species of tiger related to each other and all other panthers?
• Are all panthers related to felines and scimitar cats?
• Are all felids related to nimvarids or viverrids? And how could we tell?
• Are all of Feloidea related to any or all other members of the order Carnivora?

Those who promote creationism’s bewildering inanity should be able to show exactly where and why uniquely created kinds could not be grouped together with any parent clades that would otherwise only imply an evolutionary ancestry. Throw away any other argument you might be thinking about; none of them compare to this! If creationism is true of anything more than a single ancestor of all animal forms (if not the entire eukaryote collective), or if the concept of common ancestry is fundamentally mistaken, then there must be a point in the tree where taxonomy falls apart—where what we thought was related to everything is really unrelated to anything else; and unless you’re a scientologist or a Raelian, that criteria must apply to other animals besides ourselves.

So...
• Is the short-tailed goanna related to the perentie and all other Australian goannas?
• Are all Australian goannas related to each other and the African and Indonesian monitors?
• Are today’s terrestrial varanids related to Cretaceous mosasaurs?
• Are varanids related to any other anguimorphs including snakes?
• Are anguimorphs also related to scincomorphs and geckos?
• Are all scleroglossa related to iguanids and other squamates?
• Are all of squamata related to each other and all other lepidosaurs?
• Are lepidosaurs related to placodonts and plesiosaurs?
• Are lepidosauromorphs related to archosaurs and other diapsids?
• Are all diapsids related to anapsids or synapsid “reptiles” like dimetrodon?
• Are all reptiles related to each other and all other amniotes?
• Are all amniotes related to each other and all other tetrapods?
• Are all tetrapods related to each other and all other vertebrates?

And so on. Which of these are related? Which of these are created? Remember, if there is any validity to creationism whatsoever, or if there is some critical flaw in the overall theory of evolution from common ancestry, that flaw must be found here or it simply can’t be anywhere else. That is the phylogeny challenge. This challenge has been unanswered for more than a decade for the simple reason that there is no such thing as a “kind.” There is no point where any collection of animals appears to be original baramins. Baraminology is without basis because it is impossible to identify any point in taxonomy where everything that ever lived isn’t evidently related to everything else.

AronRa said:

Mr Heintz messaged me last night asking me to create a whole new thread and start all over again. I've chosen to resume this one from essentially the beginning, since the last one went nowhere.

Click to expand...

I want to say Aron Ra that I think he's wasting your time on purpose.

I don't think anybody here is under any illusions about that.

Nice nuts and bolts exposition of the phylogeny challenge, though.

AronRa said:

them

Click to expand...

AronRa said:

them

Click to expand...

Ok. So you want some detail as to why I believe what it is I do believe. Easy. I can do that. I'll take this part by part.
Dogs and wolves I know are related. The real difference in my opinion is wolves are the original wild animal and dogs are the various man created domestic version.
Coyotes, foxes , dingoes , African wild dogs and the others are possibly just as related. I could accept that , whatever canine like ancestors were first, that they could change enough morphologically to look like the others. Also that they could have genetic changes enough for Scientists to classify as different species or whatever.
From where I stand , a concept like a wolf to fox or wolf to dingo transformation is plausible. This is very different to a fish like ancestor leading to a wolf ,fox or dingo. I know we are not at that part of the conversation, I'm just saying.
Also, without a better understanding of how genetically these relationships are determined, it's difficult to have a firm decision on which are related to which
As far as a supernatural creator /God scenario to explain wolves, foxes ,dingoes and such it would be like this......I can't say it didn't happen. This world seems to symbiotic to have just "worked itself out. Abiogenesis doesn't seem likely. The steps from these first cells to true multicellular sexually reproductive animals seems impossible with not much solid explanation available. Human beings, though made of the same biological materials as animals , seem so different and /or more advanced. So it's not that I could explain "how a God did it" it's that if an entity had such power it could be plausible. If that makes sense.
I will do the felines later on. And finally the cervids. I'm on graveyard shift. Let me know if you want any more information on the canines.

JohnHeintz said:

Ok. So you want some detail as to why I believe what it is I do believe. Easy. I can do that.

Click to expand...

I think you overlooked the most important part

AronRa said:

Let me make clear, science is not a belief system. We don’t care what you believe. All that matters is why you believe it, what was the REASON leading you to that conclusion? That's why an unsupported opinion of "probably" doesn't answer anything. I want to see the goal posts anchored firmly. So remember to explain how you know, or why you think whatever your answers are.

Click to expand...

Like you have given us what you believe.
You believe dogs and wolves are related, and that it is very possible that they are also related to other canids like Coyotes, foxes , dingoes, and African wild dogs.
You also believe that the transition from fish to tetrapods is "very different".
(and also a few other things but let's keep it to one topic at a time)

But you haven't given us a reason why you believe this. Like, imagine for a sec you have another creationist who says that dogs, wolves, foxes, etc are not related. They are a separate creation. And also imagine that you have another creationist who says that not only are dogs, wolves, foxes, etc related, they are also related to other carnivorans: bears, seals, weasels, cats, hyenas, etc.

How could you resolve such a dispute? How do we determine who is right?

Furthermore, you say that the fish to tetrapod transition is very different, but you are obviously thinking in terms of a fish (something like a flounder) and a modern tetrapod (like a wolf). The gap seems so huge that it is very different than the differences between dogs and foxes. But what if we look at extinct fishes and tetrapods, like the following:

Now the differences don't seem to be that significant.
And how is saying that all the above are related different from saying all the canids below are related?

Or to use a better example, here is a modern group of blennies where we also see a similar transition from sea to land:

If blennies are related, how is it different in the case with the the fish to tetrapod transition given above?
And while we are at it, how are these all different from the dinosaur to bird transition:

JohnHeintz said:

Dogs and wolves I know are related. The real difference in my opinion is wolves are the original wild animal and dogs are the various man created domestic version.
Coyotes, foxes , dingoes , African wild dogs and the others are possibly just as related. I could accept that ...

Click to expand...

You just accepted evolution and common descent.

JohnHeintz said:

Ok. So you want some detail as to why I believe what it is I do believe. Easy. I can do that. I'll take this part by part.
Dogs and wolves I know are related. The real difference in my opinion is wolves are the original wild animal and dogs are the various man created domestic version.
Coyotes, foxes , dingoes , African wild dogs and the others are possibly just as related. I could accept that , whatever canine like ancestors were first, that they could change enough morphologically to look like the others. Also that they could have genetic changes enough for Scientists to classify as different species or whatever.
From where I stand , a concept like a wolf to fox or wolf to dingo transformation is plausible. This is very different to a fish like ancestor leading to a wolf ,fox or dingo. I know we are not at that part of the conversation, I'm just saying.
Also, without a better understanding of how genetically these relationships are determined, it's difficult to have a firm decision on which are related to which
As far as a supernatural creator /God scenario to explain wolves, foxes ,dingoes and such it would be like this......I can't say it didn't happen. This world seems to symbiotic to have just "worked itself out. Abiogenesis doesn't seem likely. The steps from these first cells to true multicellular sexually reproductive animals seems impossible with not much solid explanation available. Human beings, though made of the same biological materials as animals , seem so different and /or more advanced. So it's not that I could explain "how a God did it" it's that if an entity had such power it could be plausible. If that makes sense.
I will do the felines later on. And finally the cervids. I'm on graveyard shift. Let me know if you want any more information on the canines.

Click to expand...

I gave you a chart from a genetic study and asked whether you accept the EVIDENCE of relatedness, and you STILL failed to answer.

AronRa said:

We don’t care what you believe.

Click to expand...

You gave some great examples in your video series “ Supposed Lies in the Text Books” naming people that believe and still do science.

Nesslig20 said:

How could you resolve such a dispute? How do we determine who is right?

Click to expand...

Evidence like Aron says in his video’s. If there is a consensus in scientific circle then it’s 99,99% sure it holds up, also iif errors are made in science then they get corrected.

As far as a supernatural creator /God scenario to explain wolves, foxes ,dingoes and such it would be like this......I can't say it didn't happen.

Click to expand...

As far as a cosmic hippo shitting out all the universe fully formed with all the complex interlocking systems of the natural world.... I can't say it didn't happen!


Your complete lack of evidence does not justify lending belief.


Unfortunately for you John, we can say with great confidence that evolution and common descent DID happen because the voluminous evidence supports that idea.

AronRa said:

I gave you a chart from a genetic study and asked whether you accept the EVIDENCE of relatedness, and you STILL failed to answer.

Click to expand...

No. I said "without a better understanding of how genetically relationship is determined, it's hard to have a firm stance on which is related to which".