• Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
    If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
    Donations can be made via here

Explaining Macroevolution to a creationist

arg-fallbackName="JohnHeintz"/>
Took y'all long enough. That kid was an inexcusable punk.
No Larry. You acted like an arrogant narcissistic person. I REALLY noticed you never answered the questions about your abuse of NephilimFree .
Not surprising.
Come on , why did you call into his debate with someone else and start abusing him? Why did you start calling him names?
I think we know who the punk is Larry. You might have your fanboys fooled on this page. But you and I know. Don't we ?
 
arg-fallbackName="JohnHeintz"/>
Well he now can not say he was banned because he was a creationist but everyone can see with own eyes he was trolling. *SD* and me give everyone a fair chance to change behavior but some are lost causes.
Well Borg. I won't say it was because I was a Creationist. But it was discrimination for sure.
Sparhoc was continually abusive. Was he banned ? Hackenslash was abusive. Was he banned?
Sparhoc and Hackenslash used profanity. Were they banned?
So don't sit on your high horse and talk about it like your some impartial judge.
 
arg-fallbackName="JohnHeintz"/>
Can't even point out what I said was childish and/or stupid.

You just did :rolleyes:

Also, good you're banned.
Now go back and hide in your little cave you sad troll.
I'm replying to highlight to we are Borg and SD the question "why is talking to members like this acceptable". But when I fire back. It ends in getting banned.
You guys are Kind of full of garbage. Wouldn't you agree ?
 
arg-fallbackName="We are Borg"/>
Sparhoc was continually abusive. Was he banned ? Hackenslash was abusive. Was he banned?
Sparhoc and Hackenslash used profanity. Were they banned?
Unlike you they knew when to stop when they where asked to do so. That was the big difference in there behavior. That said lets see if you can follow directions if we ask to.
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
Troll's back to troll some more.

What exactly motivates you to act like this John? Are you just lacking drama in your real life that you feel the need to come and make some with strangers on the internet?
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
Sparhoc - used profanity.

Also, he did bite his thumb at the sky, not cast his eyes down when he farted, he thought lurid thoughts of the fairer sex, he seated himself where a menstruating women once sat, he planted both carrots AND cucumber in the SAME field, and he wore cloth made of more than one fiber.

On these grounds shall he be BANNED from this internet forum and hanged to death from the prescribed holy hanging tree.
 
arg-fallbackName="Nesslig20"/>
I'm replying to highlight to we are Borg and SD the question "why is talking to members like this acceptable". But when I fire back. It ends in getting banned.
You guys are Kind of full of garbage. Wouldn't you agree ?
Me calling you (a troll) out for trolling, isn't the same as you wishing a painful death upon someone's mother.

In fact, I would say that I was very reserved by just calling you a troll and not a horrible fucking person troll.
 
arg-fallbackName="Call Me Emo"/>
This is still the most fundamental error you're making, and you don't seem able to get past it.

You never need to have long-jumped in your life to jump a mile, assuming you're allowed to make a series of jumps (generation by generation) of any size, they will eventually add up to a mile.

That's analogous to the scientific theory of evolution, whereas what you're contending is actually how Pokemon works.

Populations evolve, not individuals. If you can't grasp this, then you literally have no hope of ever understanding the cornerstone of modern Biology.
Knowing that creationists (YECs) already accept Macroevolution, I fail to see why they can never understand it.
PhotoGrid_1590183938863.jpg Baraminology and Grafting Compatibility in Plants, 2020: [citations within link]
 
arg-fallbackName="Call Me Emo"/>
I am not sure if complexity really increases but for the rest I would say yes. Lifeforms change. I believe humans were all the same color when we were created and then we changed, probably as we spread out into different environments and that eventually as we continue to reproduce we will all go back to being the same color again
Oh complexity certainly can increase Screenshot_20200715-112126-1.jpg
 
arg-fallbackName="Call Me Emo"/>
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?

View attachment 442

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?

View attachment 443

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?

View attachment 441

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?

View attachment 444
View attachment 445

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.


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 organisms within a "Kind" from sharing ancestry with the "Kinds" closest to them?

1) Showing some surprisingly similar Animal and Plant Baramins (Kinds), 2020: [citations within link]
 
arg-fallbackName="*SD*"/>
Because they are programmed not to understand it.

Kinda. They'll certainly go to some pretty crazy lengths to make sure they don't understand it. Always found it bizarre to have so little interest in the truth, what is, what isn't, and favour some fantastical preference instead.
 
Back
Top