Republicans Belief in Evolution plummets

#278
#278
Vol8188 said:
And your mule has a fully functioning reproductive system?
Click to expand...

So, your argument is that horses and donkeys are two different species that do not create a new species if combined? I'm failing to see how this helps or hurts your proposition.
 
#280
#280
Orange_Crush said:
So, your argument is that horses and donkeys are two different species that do not create a new species if combined? I'm failing to see how this helps or hurts your proposition.
Click to expand...

He's the guy trying to get out the hole by digging deeper.
 
#282
#282
Orange_Crush said:
So, your argument is that horses and donkeys are two different species that do not create a new species if combined? I'm failing to see how this helps or hurts your proposition.
Click to expand...

To be of the same species two animals must be able to produce viable offspring. Therefore these two are differnt species. But we can clearly see that they are close relatives and have a common ancestor.
 
#283
#283
Vol8188 said:
To be of the same species two animals must be able to produce viable offspring. Therefore these two are differnt species. But we can clearly see that they are close relatives and have a common ancestor.
Click to expand...

Can a human and monkey reproduce?
 
#285
#285
Vol8188 said:
Do you believe they are the same species?
Click to expand...

No, but your argument has been that dogs and wolves, horses and donkeys are different species yet can reproduce. Then you come out with they can because they have a common ancestor, you also argued primates and humans have a common ancestor. So why can't men and monkeys reproduce?
 
#286
#286
Vol8188 said:
To be of the same species two animals must be able to produce viable offspring. Therefore these two are differnt species. But we can clearly see that they are close relatives and have a common ancestor.
Click to expand...

Can we? You are having to jump out back to that "unobserved", "must have" realm of scientific data again. Donkeys are the domesticated version of the African ass.

The history of donkeys is tied to human history. Archaeologists have been intrigued by where and when donkeys were first used by people because it marks a shift from agrarian to more mobile, trade-oriented society.

GNN - <br /> <b>Deprecated</b>: Function ereg_replace() is deprecated in <b>/opt/www/gnn/htdocs/gnn_include/php/articlelayout.php</b> on line <b>142</b><br /> Out of Africa: The Origin of Donkeys
Click to expand...

The origins of the donkey are lost to human history, but is contained within human history. And that's not even considering the history of the African ass, that goes further back than that.

Give me the empirical evidence that allows me to "clearly see" that they have a common ancestor.

But that's not a big issue for me. I already said that my paradigm would allow every species on earth to have evolved from genetic kinds.

But I must reiterate... You said that you can't understand how anyone can see bacterial evolution and question Darwinism. Yet, once again, you have retreated to "must have", "clearly evident", not-so-clearly evident proofs.

That doesn't seem odd and disconcerting to you?
 
#287
#287
hog88 said:
No, but your argument has been that dogs and wolves, horses and donkeys are different species yet can reproduce. Then you come out with they can because they have a common ancestor, you also argued primates and humans have a common ancestor. So why can't men and monkeys reproduce?
Click to expand...

So you agree that horses and donkeys have a common ancestor and most likely were capable of forming a viable offspring at one point? But now due to the increased amount of genetic diversity between the two, they cannot. However they can produce a sterile animal.

Is it that absurd to believe that after a few thousand years of small change over time, that donkeys and horses would be complelty incapable of producing offspring?
 
#288
#288
Orange_Crush said:
Can we? You are having to jump out back to that "unobserved", "must have" realm of scientific data again. Donkeys are the domesticated version of the African ass.



The origins of the donkey are lost to human history, but is contained within human history. And that's not even considering the history of the African ass, that goes further back than that.

Give me the empirical evidence that allows me to "clearly see" that they have a common ancestor.

But that's not a big issue for me. I already said that my paradigm would allow every species on earth to have evolved from genetic kinds.

But I must reiterate... You said that you can't understand how anyone can see bacterial evolution and question Darwinism. Yet, once again, you have retreated to "must have", "clearly evident", not-so-clearly evident proofs.

That doesn't seem odd and disconcerting to you?
Click to expand...

Did I state Darwinism? I stated evolution. Believe it or not, some people complelty debt evolution.
 
#289
#289
Vol8188 said:
So you agree that horses and donkeys have a common ancestor and most likely were capable of forming a viable offspring at one point? But now due to the increased amount of genetic diversity between the two, they cannot. However they can produce a sterile animal.

Is it that absurd to believe that after a few thousand years of small change over time, that donkeys and horses would be complelty incapable of producing offspring?
Click to expand...

So, you have gone from:

I can't believe that someone could see bacteria evolving and question Darwinian evolution.

to

Don't you believe that it "can" happen?

to

"Is it that absurd" for me to believe it?

The more you are questioned, and as soon as your equivocations are noted and disallowed, your argument has gotten progressively weaker.

Do you not see that as odd, and slightly disconcerting?
 
#290
#290
Vol8188 said:
Did I state Darwinism? I stated evolution. Believe it or not, some people complelty debt evolution.
Click to expand...

This was the nugget that I was waiting for. So, you admit that you were equivocating. The next question is: Was it intentional or out of ignorance?

Edit: Per the bold, I must conclude that it was intentional. Early on you could have clarified that you were only trying to prove micro-evolution, but you did not. You went to great lengths to show the veracity of Darwinian evolution-- basically saying both evolutions are one and the same.

Now, you are retreating to claim that you were only talking about micro-evolution, that which has been observed.

This is a very disingenuous debating tactic, and a theory that has been unequivocally proven as scientific fact would not need such debating tactics.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#294
#294
Vol8188 said:
How is it possible that after seeing bacteria and even viruses evolve at alarmin rates, that anyone can still deny evolution?
Click to expand...

Vol8188 said:
So you don't believe that small change over time can lead to large scale change?
Click to expand...

This would seem to indicate that you were not making a distinction between the observed micro-evolution and unobserved macro-evolution. Note that the second post was your second post on the subject. You did not make the distinction when you had the chance, but instead pressed the equivocation home.
 
#295
#295
Orange_Crush said:
Please see the edit to that post. I don't want to inadvertently do something underhanded, like add an edit that you miss and thus fail to respond to.

:hi:
Click to expand...

I don't disagree in anyway with macro evolution. I can simply see how it is harder for some to believe.
 
#298
#298
Vol8188 said:
I don't disagree in anyway with macro evolution. I can simply see how it is harder for some to believe.
Click to expand...

I understand that you don't disagree with it. But you said you don't see how anyone can see bacterial evolution and doubt "evolution". Your very next post defined your use of "evolution" as "small scale change over time making large scale changes". (Which is the definition of unobserved, macro-evolution.) You then made the argument repeatedly for macro-evolution by retreating to just-so theories. You then claimed that you were talking about micro-evolution all along, because, believe it or not, some folks don't believe in it.

This seems like a very disingenuous debating tactic that a proven fact of science would not need.
 
#299
#299
Vol8188 said:
I find it absurd that anyone would deny evolution all together. Nothing disingenuous about that.
Click to expand...

We are not talking about evolution "all together". You defined the evolution that you were talking about in the second post on this topic, then made the claim that wasn't what you were talking about. Your equivocation was exposed and you retreated to apparent dishonesty. Is that needed?
 
#300
#300
Orange_Crush said:
We are not talking about evolution "all together". You defined the evolution that you were talking about in the second post on this topic, then made the claim that wasn't what you were talking about. Your equivocation was exposed and you retreated to apparent dishonesty. Is that needed?
Click to expand...

I apologize for being reasonable. I won't let it happen again, sir.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top