Challenging questions concerning Evolution and Creation

[he_who_is_nobody]

(out of curiosity, why do you always ask this question, and in virtually the same wording every time?)

After years of having this discussion with creationists I have noticed one constant, none of them seems to actually know what evolution is. They will either ignore this question or give a wrong definition. The is strange because taking a minute to google the answer would come up with it and most creationist source give the correct answer. Basically I want to expose how little they know about the subject they are attempting to argue against.

I use the qualifier biological (even though it is redudant) so the creationist cannot try to use sumatics when they attempt to define evolution. Anotherthing I have observed over the years.

 

[Dean]

["¦] none of them [creationists] seems to actually know what evolution is. They will either ignore this question or give a wrong definition. ["¦]

It's the Dunning-Kruger effect...

 

[Inferno]

["¦] none of them [creationists] seems to actually know what evolution is. They will either ignore this question or give a wrong definition. ["¦]

It's the Dunning-Kruger effect...

No, it's the stupidity effect. Dunning-Kruger is overestimating ones ability, not "being utterly false".

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

TheOnlyThing2Fear, define species in a biological context. Define evolution in a biological context.

I have a better one.

Is a dolphin an animal, or a fish?
Explain your answer.

Oh, goodie goodie this should be FUN.

 

[Laurens]

Oh, goodie goodie this should be FUN.

I'm willing to bet that we're all going to end up frustrated here... :mrgreen:

 

[TheOnlyThing2Fear]

How is a fruit fly or fish a "new species" if it is still a fruit fly and still a fish?

Your intention to put me in a defamatory light is obvious. You could have easily quoted me in a more truthful light, such as the entire text of what I actually wrote:

"To quote the author, "Creationists demand that we show lizards turning into birds or trees turning into people, and so on. They will not except any new species of fruit fly or fish because it is "still" a fruit fly or fish." I assume for the sake of argument that you meant "accept" and not "except".

But, you chose to leave off the fact that I noted that I was quoting the author, AronRa. Perhaps AronRa is unaware of what constitutes a species.

 

[Dustnite]

Did you just respond to austral claiming he did not quote you fully but not quoting him fully or addressing the several points he made?

"To quote the author, "Creationists demand that we show lizards turning into birds or trees turning into people, and so on. They will not except any new species of fruit fly or fish because it is "still" a fruit fly or fish." I assume for the sake of argument that you meant "accept" and not "except".

But, you chose to leave off the fact that I noted that I was quoting the author, AronRa. Perhaps AronRa is unaware of what constitutes a species.

Also, are you reading the same sentence I am? AronRa clearly is stating an observation that Creationists commonly strawman evolution to say what it in fact doesn't do (e.g. lizards into birds). AronRa is not supporting that assertion...

 

[Laurens]

Your intention to put me in a defamatory light is obvious. You could have easily quoted me in a more truthful light, such as the entire text of what I actually wrote:

"To quote the author, "Creationists demand that we show lizards turning into birds or trees turning into people, and so on. They will not except any new species of fruit fly or fish because it is "still" a fruit fly or fish." I assume for the sake of argument that you meant "accept" and not "except".

But, you chose to leave off the fact that I noted that I was quoting the author, AronRa. Perhaps AronRa is unaware of what constitutes a species.

Take a look at this website: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIntro.shtml

From looking at your posts you seem confused about what evolution actually is. The link should clear up any misunderstandings, or if you still have some after browsing that site, feel free to ask any questions, and I, or the other users here would be happy to answer.

Right now there's no point in continuing this discussion until we're all actually talking about the same thing... Right now it seems that you're talking about some kind of bizarre parody of evolution that none of us here accept.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Perhaps AronRa is unaware of what constitutes a species.

Define species in a biological context. Define evolution in a biological context.

 

[australopithecus]

Your intention to put me in a defamatory light is obvious. You could have easily quoted me in a more truthful light, such as the entire text of what I actually wrote:

"To quote the author, "Creationists demand that we show lizards turning into birds or trees turning into people, and so on. They will not except any new species of fruit fly or fish because it is "still" a fruit fly or fish." I assume for the sake of argument that you meant "accept" and not "except".

Your complete lack of understanding is obvious. Shall we look at the entirety of your post, shall we?

To quote the author, "Creationists demand that we show lizards turning into birds or trees turning into people, and so on. They will not except any new species of fruit fly or fish because it is "still" a fruit fly or fish." I assume for the sake of argument that you meant "accept" and not "except".

The above is your quoting AronRa, as you have pointed out...

How is a fruit fly or fish a "new species" if it is still a fruit fly and still a fish? No matter how much Frankenstein science is performed on the fruit fly, it remains a fruit fly, unless related to its forced deformity it is classified as something else.

At this point you stop quoting and are asking direct questions. You display a shocking lack of understanding of evolution and taxonomy. Shocking because you're trying to refute it. Surely you should be knowledgeable about things your trying to dismiss?

Isn't it factual that before modern theories arose out of modern technology that this is precisely what was and is taught? (except the part about trees turning into people, but I give the "worms to humans crowd" credit for their attempts) Lizards are turning into birds, especially in museum dioramas and public school textbooks. I'm expecting hunting license fees for veloci-pheasants to be higher than last year.

Then, just to compound the fact your previous paragraph was indeed you questioning speciation and displaying your ignorance, you go on to assert a strawman of evolutionary theory that further displays you don't know what you're talking about.

So I've just quoted your entire post, in context, and low and behold the conclusion is till the same; that being you don't know what evolution is. I have no need to put you in a defamatory light, you are quite clearly ignorant as to what evolution is all by yourself.

But, you chose to leave off the fact that I noted that I was quoting the author, AronRa. Perhaps AronRa is unaware of what constitutes a species.

Because it was clear you were quoting AronRa, I was addressing YOUR ignorance, just so you've not forgotten it was this bit:

How is a fruit fly or fish a "new species" if it is still a fruit fly and still a fish? No matter how much Frankenstein science is performed on the fruit fly, it remains a fruit fly, unless related to its forced deformity it is classified as something else.

Are we clear? Great. Now kindly answer the question he_who_is_nobody has been asking you for some time. You seem to be purposefully ignoring it....