Explaining Macroevolution to a creationist

[Deleted member 619]

This Sparhoc is still replying. Can someone please let him know that nobody cares. Or tell his sock account Hackensack that nobody cares.

Wants to talk about my profanity as childish, yet here we see the playground coquettishness of the embarrassed teenager who passes messages through friends despite all being in earshot.

Grow the fuck up.

As for the 'sock' accusation. most of us here have known each other one way or another for more than a decade. The only person you're talking to with this bollocks is yourself. Or the ceiling, which I'm told you guys do on occasion. Never got the hang of conversing with masonry myself, but I'm told it's quite poplar in some circles of thought (SWIDT?)

You're not fooling anybody. Your dissembling and dishonesty have been obvious to us from word one, becausw we've seen nit all before, and they keep churning out you clones of the Platonic creationist out. Can't remember the last time I saw an original tactic from creationists. Might have been Dumbski points.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Sparhoc. There's something I want to discuss with you. Oh wait,. No there isn't. And there never will be. So stop embarrassing yourself.

I am not exactly clear why you think that your "I'm not talking to you" act is meant to make me embarrassed of myself?

 

[Deleted member 619]

One . As I said in the beginning. My disbelief in universal common ancestry has nothing to do with religion, religious texts or belief of any kind of that nature.

We know what you said. We also know that you almost certanly have no access to what motivates you, but we do, because we can see it. We know the full cladistic history of all your arguments and objections and where they come from. We know exactly which ones come from Ham, from Hovind, from anywhere, because we'veall been here before. You're not a mystery to anybody here but yourself.

Two. I do not care if Aron Ra never responds.
He dropped a challenge that "in 12 exchanges he would , to my satisfaction, have me accept universal common ancestry completely and realise how ridiculous organised religion or creation is". I did answer his questions .
He kept saying that my answers weren't good enough. Additionally, I asked to change topics for this reason. I don't know HOW I was supposed to answer. Or in WHAT WORDING would be acceptable.
Either way. It was his challenge. I reckon he is backing out and wants to use the excuse "John didn't answer my questions".

That's not an excuse. You haven't met your responsibilities. His assessment of your responses was perfectly correct. Analysing questions is what I do.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Your dissembling and dishonesty have been obvious to us from word one, becausw we've seen nit all before, and they keep churning out you clones of the Platonic creationist out. Can't remember the last time I saw an original tactic from creationists. Might have been Dumbski points.

Watch me disagree with myself now John.

In this, at least, I disagree. I always assume good faith until there is no longer reason to consider good faith. In John's case, it was around the 3rd time he replied to my posts asking more questions that weren't acknowledging my answers to his previous questions, and also failed to even attempt an answer at the questions I'd posed him.

Then I got the 'you did X, so now I can no longer talk to you' absurdity which he's somehow still talking about now pages later.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Oops, we - I mean - I posted at the same time as myself there... proving the laws of physics false no doubt!

What do you say to that, sockme? Wait, or am I, I mean we... no I mean "singular us" sockyou?

 

[Deleted member 619]

Common ancestry has nothing to do with how how Evolution works.

Despicable. Not what nhe said. This is a blatant quote mine.

I suspect suicide by mod is the goal here.

 

[Sparhafoc]

yet here we see the playground coquettishness of the embarrassed teenager who passes messages through friends despite all being in earshot.

Tell John I am not talking to him because he's a poo poo head and also immature!

 

[Deleted member 619]

Oops, we - I mean - I posted at the same time as myself there... proving the laws of physics false no doubt!

What do you say to that, sockme? Wait, or am I, I mean we... no I mean "singular us" sockyou?

You and I both know that simultaneity is an illusion (we are of one mind, after all....

 

[We are Borg]

But let's not make childish excuses where the students don't answer the questions the right way , has anything to do with it

The wrong or right way has nothing to do with anything as long as you try to answer the question, that way he sees what you know and do not know. Like i said i do not believe that is also acceptable in this case. Common ancestry is not that difficult to prove there is tons of evidence for it. But we need to know what you know and how you see it all. We can make giant steps or small steps what would be better of the two for teaching. If you do giant steps you can lose overview really fast, small steps is easier to understand to digest and reflect on. But also easier to ask followup questions. The goal is to get you allow good critical thinking.

Let me ask you a question if God exists (i’m atheist btw) what would be easier, plant seeds of life on planets and let evolution play out, so all life comes from common ancestry or by making everything from 0 and mimic that we have a common ancestry. Either way God is all knowing so when he planted that seed he would know the outcome before he started.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

John, you've either missed - or are studiously ignoring - my earlier post (I'm using the post number, SD!), where I listed the number of times Aron asked his question of you ("If they are related, there is a way to tell. Do you know how we could do that?"), and the number of times you didn't answer, before eventually giving a non-answer ("The African wild dog probably is related.").

Since then, I've suggested twice that you answer his question - it's a "Yes" or "No" question.

You've yet to do that, so - again, like Aron - I'll repeat what I said to you:

"Why don't you do as I suggested in my previous post:
1) If you know how to tell, say so, and explain it - so Aron can tell if you do actually know;
2) If not, ask, and we're all certain that Aron will be only too happy to explain it to you (and anyone else who doesn't know)."

You've also claimed that Aron claimed he could convince you that evolution is true in 12 exchanges - this only works if you answer his questions, if you don't, then it will take more exchanges and time.

Please answer his question in your next post.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

The algae article is about a colony or biofilm of algae. It is not groundbreaking. It is definitely not an explanation of how single cell organisms became multicellular sexually reproductive animals.

So now you're changing the request from unicellularity into multicellularity to unicellularity into sexually reproductive multicellularity.

Micro-species (microorganisms) reproduce asexually, macro-species (multicellular organisms) reproduce sexually - because they are too complex. There are minor exceptions to the latter.

A quick overview of the evolution of sexual reproduction can be found here [1].

The article Greg presented about bone.
Let's talk about this. It doesn't begin single cell organisms. Not sure why it was even presented. It was so let's keep going.
I'm not sure if you guys paid attention to how often or said 'the origin of this gene/mechanism or whatever is not known", "this MOST LIKELY became that", "this MAY have lead to that".
These are not facts. These are not answers. These are " IF this is the answer then we THINK it MAY have gone like this".
Unless you can point out what that article is saying that I'm missing.
And what happened to Aron Ra ? Is he gone ? Has he

So, you're looking for every single step from microorganisms to macro-organisms, with all evolutionary stages in between - bone, muscles, organs (all types), blood, neurology, etc., etc., etc.

This is quite unrealistic: by the time we get through all of this, we'll be dead.

Are you, as others have surmised, JAQing off?

In a earlier response to one of Aron's questions, you've proposed that a creator is still a possible explanation, with said creator "in the lead".

I did ask you to show this earlier but I think I'll start a thread for you to do this.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[JohnHeintz]

Greetings,


So now you're changing the request from unicellularity into multicellularity to unicellularity into sexually reproductive multicellularity.

Micro-species (microorganisms) reproduce asexually, macro-species (multicellular organisms) reproduce sexually - because they are too complex. There are minor exceptions to the latter.

A quick overview of the evolution of sexual reproduction can be found here [1].


So, you're looking for every single step from microorganisms to macro-organisms, with all evolutionary stages in between - bone, muscles, organs (all types), blood, neurology, etc., etc., etc.

This is quite unrealistic: by the time we get through all of this, we'll be dead.

Are you, as others have surmised, JAQing off?

In a earlier response to one of Aron's questions, you've proposed that a creator is still a possible explanation, with said creator "in the lead".

I did ask you to show this earlier but I think I'll start a thread for you to do this.

Kindest regards,

James

It never changed. Read through again.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

It never changed. Read through again.

Also, I would very much like to hear an explanation, genetic or otherwise, about how the single cell/eukaryotic cell moved past the biofilm/colony/mold stage to something that was a true multicellular reproductive animal.
This is another major sticking point.

Lie.

I do not understand why one would lie on a written forum. With just one click, the lie is exposed.

 

[We are Borg]

I do not understand why one would lie on a written forum. With just one click, the lie is exposed.

That is the beauty of forums you can fact check before you post a responce.

 

[Sparhafoc]

It's so bizarre how many people seem to think the written word just disappears afterwards, and they are invariably the same people who flap their gums incessantly producing horrendously inept sounds.

 

[JohnHeintz]

Lie.

I do not understand why one would lie on a written forum. With just one click, the lie is exposed.

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.

 

[Sparhafoc]

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.

I'm asking about how the single cell organisms became something like a worm, trilobite or fish

Fish
Worms
Trilobytes

It's still there, John.

You could just say: my mistake, I didn't mean that. And we could move on. But obviously, you did specifically say you wanted one thing, then later changed it to something completely different.

The answer, as has already been given to you, and was already clearly spelled out before you'd even asked the question is that single-celled organisms didn't become fish, worms, or trilobytes any more than molecules became man. There's a vast historical chain of evolution between them all, so there's no way to answer your question that doesn't involve us spending months or years working to present all the information to you. And it's not like anyone here is expert in all of that, so they'd just have to go Google it the same as you.

Regardless, the point remains: you need to engage John. People have given you answer after answer, but you're still not responding in kind.

 

[JohnHeintz]

Lie.

I do not understand why one would lie on a written forum. With just one click, the lie is exposed.

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

 

[Sparhafoc]

Just misinterpretation of the text

Whose misinterpretation?

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

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

No, they're not - as I showed when I quoted the paper where it said that the colony has been stable for 4 years as asexually-reproductive multicellular organisms.

And you still haven't answered Aron's question.

Kindest regards,

James