Search results

Actually they have provided methods by which they identify and distinguish between "Kinds".... It's just that the results end up undermining the argument they're trying to make. So instead of "Kinds" being evidently unrelated, they end up being nearly indistinguishable. Showing some...

Not sure if this would be of any use to AronRa or if he's even going to see this, but I think it would help if he's aware of the extent of biodiversity Creationists already accept within "Kinds" to show that they clearly accept that Macroevolution happens. Baraminology and Grafting...

That's a strong possibility

To be fair, Creationists actually do attempt to identify "created kinds", however, it ends up often looking like this [1] whenever you compare a "Kind" to the "Kinds" closest to them, which undermines the argument they're trying to make. A better question would be, what is preventing the...

Oh complexity certainly can increase

I'm happy to be welcomed

Knowing that creationists (YECs) already accept Macroevolution, I fail to see why they can never understand it. Baraminology and Grafting Compatibility in Plants, 2020: [citations within link]

Written by: Emotionally Stunted Emoticon In an article from Evolutionnews.org [2], Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute attempted to critique a 2010 paper on the evolution of Antifreeze in Antarctic Eelpouts [1]. Although numerous claims were made throughout the article, I'll be focusing on...

The test is not for you to ask me questions. Just take the test or leave it alone.

Are you going to take the challenge or what??

That's the same thing I try to explain to Creationists all the time. But because they don't understand the significance of Phylogenies, they don't understand the significance of the argument.

Written by: Emotionally Stunted Emoticon Creationists tend to argue that the 98.5 percent DNA similarity between Humans and Chimps is a myth [9]. They argue this by pointing out several "anomalies" in the comparison such as Chimps having an 11.5% larger genome to Humans [2], and the fact...

You're beginning to play with me. The paper clearly describes not only that the plants are all variants of the same species, but also describes how they were cultivated to look the way they look. Do you accept the fact that these plants are related? If not, give reasons for your answer and...

Is that all the information you got from the citation?

I've already given you evidence, but apparently it isn't enough. But what "evidence" are you really looking for though? Do you want me to show you a banana tree not reverting back into its wild type form? What would you expect the evidence to be or look like? I'm trying my best to give you...

"In your head" yeah so Evolution doesn't work according to what's in your head. Many Cultivars or Citrus and Mangoes and Bananas grow in the wild and don't revert to their wild type forms. They just 'learned' to cope in their new environments. Try to familiarize yourself about how Evolution...

I fail to see why its necessary to show a plant reverting back into it's wild type when you already accept speciation. Furthermore, Plants don't simply revert back into their wild type after thousands of years of cultivation.....not saying that they don't, but not that easily. Are you...

I also accompanied my pictures with a citation that describes how they evolved. Furthermore, they can all be grafted and cross pollinated so it shouldn't be difficult to accept their relatedness. The Evolution of Brassica Oleracea https://botanistinthekitchen.blog/tag/brassica-oleracea/

So you said you accept microevolution and speciation....but not Macroevolution in the sense that all animals are related. Fair enough Now I'm not going to attempt to prove Evolution to you.... That's Aron's task. I just want to find out how much Evolution you're familiar with or already accept...

I mean saying two things are complex and similar gives no real indication as to how similar they really are. For example, i can say that sharks amd whales are both similar and complex organisms, but it gives no indication as to how far the similarities in complexity goes. The only way to do that...