Argument #2: Evolution Of Species

[Mister Agenda]

Argument #2: Evolution of Species

The evolutionist Kerkut defined the “general theory of evolution” as “the theory that living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.” He goes on to say, “The evidence which supports this is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis.” G. A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution (Oxford, UK: Pergamon, 1960), p.157.

Bad start. Despite what you should have learned in the previous thread, here you are quoting a biologist who happens not to be the pope of evolution who said something on the topic 54 years ago as though we should take it as gospel.

It's also been pointed out to you before that evolution doesn't depend on common descent, if another line of descent were discovered it would be interesting, but it wouldn't break evolution. There's nothing in evolution that precludes a second (or third, or fourth, or whatever) abiogenesis event.

Is it your intention to take everything you did wrong in the previous evidence thread and double down on it?

My argument is not that change doesn’t take place within species over time. My argument is that no matter how long the time frame, there is no substantial scientific evidence that a microbe has evolved into a human being.

All human beings start out as microorganisms, but we evolved from hominids. You'd have to go back over 3 billion years to find a single-celled ancestor to humans.

Additionally, there is no substantial scientific evidence that non-living chemicals can produce a living cell regardless of time and/or chance.

Perhaps you should have titled this thread differently then, since abiogenesis is not a part of evolution. It wouldn't matter if God poofed the first microbe into existence, evolution applies thereafter.

And a more honest claim would be that there is no substantial scientific evidence that non-living chemicals can produce a living cell that you personally will ever find convincing because your mind is completely closed on the topic.

[Jackalope]

Rev plays a quote mine from a 54 year old source, ignoring all the evidence that has been gathered since.

I play "endogenous retroviral insertion".

Game over.

Game is far from over.

Account for the evidence of endogenous retroviral insertions then.

Good luck with that, you intellectually dishonest fuck.

[Angrboda]

The evolutionist Kerkut defined the “general theory of evolution” as “the theory that living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.” He goes on to say, “The evidence which supports this is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis.” G. A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution (Oxford, UK: Pergamon, 1960), p.157.

Here's the full quote from Kerkut, with your extracts in blue:

There is a theory which states that many living animals can be observed over the course of time to undergo changes so that new species are formed. This can be called the "Special Theory of Evolution" and can be demonstrated in certain cases by experiments. On the other hand there is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the "General Theory of Evolution" and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis.

— Implications of Evolution, G.A. Kerkut

So Kerkut wasn't referring to the theory of evolution as commonly understood, which he contrasts as the "Special Theory of Evolution," but rather to an expanded, non-standard definition of his own which includes abiogenesis. So, your second argument is to quote mine and misrepresent the words of a scientist in a way that is dishonest and does not impact the standard definition of evolution in the slightest. That's fucking weak.

[Whateverist]

Instead of putting me down, try addressing the argument.

---

Try focusing on the issue that I brought up instead of focusing on a missed dotted "i" or a slanted crossed "t".

Your joking, right? You posted the *opinion* of one person, quote mined from a 54 year old book, that ignores all of the substantial research that's been done since.

There is literally nothing to address. Your source is obsolete.

The double helix structure of dna had only been discovered 6 years before that book came out. The headline should read: Obscure Scientist Working in the Earliest Days of DNA's Discovery, Opines that All Life on Earth today Descended from just one Creature."

This isn't evidence. It's trivia.

[Mister Agenda]

Instead of putting me down, try addressing the argument.

You didn't make an argument. You made assertions. The argument would be the part where you tell us why we should believe your assertions.

Try focusing on the issue that I brought up instead of focusing on a missed dotted "i" or a slanted crossed "t".

When you say that, having read your first post and most of the other posts you've made in this forum, at this point I mentally translate that as 'don't focus on the fact that I never give any of you any reason to think that anything I post is remotely credible, pretend that I'm arguing in good faith, so I can set you up for some kind of weak 'gotcha' later'.

[Revelation777]

Argument #2: Evolution of Species

The evolutionist Kerkut defined the “general theory of evolution” as “the theory that living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.” He goes on to say, “The evidence which supports this is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis.” G. A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution (Oxford, UK: Pergamon, 1960), p.157.

Okay! So, first of all, Kerkut's definitions, from what I've been able to read, are simply wrong; it's not up to him to decide what things mean, there's an entire scientific community that disagrees with him on that. You don't get to cherry pick the opinions of a single man, whose ideas were not shared by the majority of mainstream science, and expect us all to suddenly scramble to deal with that, any more than we're allowed to pick some insane cultish corner of your religion that sacrifices babies to god, and demand that you defend that. Play by the rules, Rev.

More importantly, Kerkut died a decade ago, and the books he published are now over fifty years old; the science here has improved in leaps and bounds, and it's not the same field as it was when Kerkut published his- still erroneous- book. In the same manner as you wouldn't want us discarding the new testament and pretending that the old testament is all christianity is, don't discard half a century of scientific progress in order to make your point. It's dishonest.

My argument is not that change doesn’t take place within species over time. My argument is that no matter how long the time frame, there is no substantial scientific evidence that a microbe has evolved into a human being. Additionally, there is no substantial scientific evidence that non-living chemicals can produce a living cell regardless of time and/or chance.

So, first of all, abiogenesis isn't evolution, no matter how hard you like to pretend. Second of all, your "microbe evolved into a human" crap is profoundly dishonest, as it shows how little you bothered to research before spewing this stuff; microbes to people doesn't happen without many, many transitions, and we do have plenty of genetic evidence that shows humans are connected to the last transition in the chain, apes: human chromosome 2 is adequate evidence of that, and if you quote AiG in defense of that, you will be roundly laughed at, be warned.

As to your last claim, about non living chemicals producing life... yes, that is possible, and we do have evidence.

Hey Rev, how much research did you do before you decided it was okay to flatly assert demonstrably incorrect things as truth? Is that what Jesus would have wanted?

Why are you threatening that you will give me a warning?

[Mister Agenda]

Game is far from over.

The game is actually over if you insist on asserting that the game is not over when someone makes a telling point instead of even trying to refute it. Identical retroviral insertions in related species is something that only makes sense in the context of evolution. If you don't address that, you lose.

[Revelation777]

THat's a common creationist ploy, though.

I remember arguing with one elsewhere who linked to articles no more modern than 1931.

Yep. It's a transparent one and extremely dishonest.

Part of the problem is that there is a pressure in the scientific community to fall in line with evolution or jeopardize your credibility, lose your funding, and be ostracized.

[Jackalope]

Game is far from over.

The game is actually over if you insist on asserting that the game is not over when someone makes a telling point instead of even trying to refute it. Identical retroviral insertions in related species is something that only makes sense in the context of evolution. If you don't address that, you lose.

And don't forget rev, I told you this line of evidence would come up when you first mentioned you would be raising these arguments, and that you should be prepared to account for it. Seeing how it is some of the most compelling evidence for evolution, ignoring it is telling.

If you cannot, it is nobody's failure but your own.

[Revelation777]

Argument #2: Evolution of Species

The evolutionist Kerkut defined the “general theory of evolution” as “the theory that living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.” He goes on to say, “The evidence which supports this is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis.” G. A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution (Oxford, UK: Pergamon, 1960), p.157.

My argument is not that change doesn’t take place within species over time. My argument is that no matter how long the time frame, there is no substantial scientific evidence that a microbe has evolved into a human being. Additionally, there is no substantial scientific evidence that non-living chemicals can produce a living cell regardless of time and/or chance.

Look son at the picture that is slightly crooked on the wall, pay no mind to the elephant in the room.