Is evolution a fact?

[MarsCydonia]

I am now defining complexity as younger on the evolutionary tree.

So a dog would be more complex than a theropod or even a wolf.

[sarcasm]Makes perfect sense...[/sarcasm]

 

[SpecialFrog]

You skipped my question... Do you agree with the evolutionists tree of life? If yes.. Please paste which one.

It's a pointless question. There is no "evolutionist tree of life". There are a variety of models which are accurate enough for their intended purpose. Nobody claims to have mapped out the tree of life for all current and former species.

So do you agree that under your current definition of "complexity" then the descent of dogs from wolves proves complexity can increase via evolution? Do you want to try and come up with a better definition?

Why don't we go back to talking about archaeopteryx. If we show that archaeopteryx has a common ancestor with modern birds, would that show that evolution can increase "complexity"?

 

[SpecialFrog]

Ok because you put your answer in quotes... I ask again... Are you saying there is no tree of life? So no Luca? Or no common ancestor? No common descent?

I'm saying no one claims to have mapped out a complete and accurate tree of life.

So do you want to talk about how your definition of complexity proves that it increases or about archaeopteryx?

 

[SpecialFrog]

We'll be that as it may... I am not asking that... I am asking do you agree there is a tree of life?

You wanted me to cite a specific tree, which is not the same as what you now claim to be asking.

The evidence is that life arose only once (or at least that all surviving life is descended from a single instance of life arising) and that eukaryotic descent follows a classical tree structure -- with the occasional horizontal insertion of a tiny (percent wise) number of genes. The transition from LUCA to prokaryotes to eukaryotes is still somewhat unknown (though not entirely).

So do you have a point?

Otherwise lets talk about archaeopteryx.

And yes, that Google definition is wrong as you have already agreed at the start of this thread.

If you want to talk about complexity please define it properly.

Also, I didn't say what you are claiming I did about complexity. I just refused to accept your nonsense statement about complexity and the tree of life. Read more carefully.

 

[SpecialFrog]

So that Google definition is wrong?

Edit

I mean according to you....

I never disagreed with that definition.

First of all, it isn't a "Google definition" it is a definition from a page found via Google search. When I search for "evolution" it shows the opening of the Wikipedia page on evolution, which is correct according to biologists. Informal uses of the word are irrelevant.

Secondly, you already agreed to the correct definition, which is not this one. Ergo you already agreed that this definition is wrong.

So move on and either define complexity since you think it is meaningful or talk about archaeopteryx or something.

 

[SpecialFrog]

Whatever.

evolution being defined as simple to complex.... Is that wrong according to you?

If you are talking about biological evolution yes. As you have been informed.

So you pestered me to explain the current tree of life model and yet have not replied to it.

 

[DutchLiam84]

Bernard, can we play a little game to make this thread a bit more fun?

So I have these 3 numbers, that follow a rule, you have to guess what my rule is. If you think you know what my rule is, give me 3 numbers that you think fit the rule and tell me what the rule is, understood?

These are the numbers: 4, 8, 16

What is my rule?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Now I ask you..do you agree with the fossil record ....complex on top... Simple at bottom? Or same question... Do you agree with evolutions claims the plants and animals found in the fossil record increase complexity as you move towards the top of the fossil record?

Can you provide a source for this evolutionary claim? The progression of simple-to-complex is a pre-evolutionary idea. The theory of evolution claims that the diversity of life increases -- and I agree that the fossil record shows this.

I already went down this line of questioning with the troll. The best part, was that the troll insured it would answer my questions. Care to guess how the troll responded, after I pointed out how it responded with none answers?
[showmore=Confirm you guess.]

Bernhard.visscher[/url]"]Ok he who is nobody:

Evidence for above the species level... In stead of saying provide evidence that the dorudon is a direct ancestor to the basilosaurus. It simply becomes show me the link between the two. By what evidence do you claim the two are linked?

It becomes a semantically word game.... Your going down the Aron Ra road...

You have one more question... Make it count.

Yes I'm skipping all the rest of your questions... Your rebuttal is insignificant.

:lol:

Who did not see that coming?[/showmore]

 

[red]

Bernard, can we play a little game to make this thread a bit more fun?

So I have these 3 numbers, that follow a rule, you have to guess what my rule is. If you think you know what my rule is, give me 3 numbers that you think fit the rule and tell me what the rule is, understood?

These are the numbers: 4, 8, 16

What is my rule?

Obviously a trick question.
How can you prove those numbers are reliable?
From which branch of maths did you draw the numbers from and do you have a theory or just a hypothesis, and what is it?
How do you know your numbers started from where they do?
Anyway, 3 numbers which fit the rule are:
4, 8, & 16.
What did I win for Bernhard?

 

[Mr_Wilford]

Bernard, can we play a little game to make this thread a bit more fun?

So I have these 3 numbers, that follow a rule, you have to guess what my rule is. If you think you know what my rule is, give me 3 numbers that you think fit the rule and tell me what the rule is, understood?

These are the numbers: 4, 8, 16

What is my rule?

Your rule...is irrelevant...

Whay are your presuppositions when asking question that you did?

Say none = ignorant becuase you do presuppositions

 

[red]

Bernard, can we play a little game to make this thread a bit more fun?

So I have these 3 numbers, that follow a rule, you have to guess what my rule is. If you think you know what my rule is, give me 3 numbers that you think fit the rule and tell me what the rule is, understood?

These are the numbers: 4, 8, 16

What is my rule?

Your rule...is irrelevant...

Whay are your presuppositions when asking question that you did?

Say none = ignorant becuase you do presuppositions

You didn't read the question!
"So I have these 3 numbers, that follow a rule....
These are the numbers: 4, 8, 16"
The answer is that 3 numbers - as prescribed - follow his rule.
You are presupposing other rules.
Your presuppositions are irrelevant.

 

[Mr_Wilford]

You didn't read the question!
"So I have these 3 numbers, that follow a rule....
These are the numbers: 4, 8, 16"
The answer is that 3 numbers - as prescribed - follow his rule.
You are presupposing other rules.
Your presuppositions are irrelevant.

Ohhhhh sure red...I presuppose rules other than rule

No

You presuppose my presuppose therefore you say no presuppositions therefore you admit ignorance

Typical evolutionist...

(*cough*this is satire*cough*)

 

[red]

Ohhhhh sure red...I presuppose rules other than rule

No

You presuppose my presuppose therefore you say no presuppositions therefore you admit ignorance

Typical evolutionist...

I suppose if you presuppose there are rules then there needs to be some presupposition to the proposition there are rules.
I am ignorant of your presuppositional stance as that presupposes that it is valid to propose a position which is valid.
Do you have evidence that evolutionists fell from the tree of life based on the presupposition that science is evidence of evolution and is does not prove macroevolution?

 

[Mr_Wilford]

Nonono

You provide your presuppositions...this thread title is evilution is a fakt...you prove your presuppositions valid are not, yes?

 

[red]

Nonono

You provide your presuppositions...this thread title is evilution is a fakt...you prove your presuppositions valid are not, yes?

I have shown that the rules are 4, 8 and 16 for the tree of life, according to DutchLiam84.
You have no evidence to make your claim.
So just answer my question because now you are into evolutionist evadance.

 

[Mr_Wilford]

Fine...wat ur question??

 

[red]

Fine...wat ur question??

Are you serious?
You think I am lightweight because evolution is mythology and you don't see what I am asking is vital?
You will seek and find the truth in my question.
Please do the answer honestly.

 

[red]

Ohhhhh sure red...I presuppose rules other than rule

Typical evolutionist...

I suppose if you presuppose there are rules then there needs to be some presupposition to the proposition there are rules.
I am ignorant of your presuppositional stance as that presupposes that it is valid to propose a position which is valid.
Do you have evidence that evolutionists fell from the tree of life based on the presupposition that science is evidence of evolution and it does not prove macroevolution?

Yes!
It was a serious question.

 

[Mr_Wilford]

U aksing if I have evidance you evolutionauts fell from the tree of life but not prove macroevolution???

Easy...I answere question your with a question

Which tree you want me to prove you not didn;t fall out of?

Oh and macroevolution is a fairy tale for grownups. Just read anything by Ray Comfort

 

[red]

U aksing if I have evidance you evolutionauts fell from the tree of life but not prove macroevolution???

Easy...I answere question your with a question

Which tree you want me to prove you not didn;t fall out of?

Oh and macroevolution is a fairy tale for grownups. Just read anything by Ray Comfort

I know you cannot answer my question with honestness.
If you answer my question first, then I will answer yours.