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]

[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]

[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.