Discussion on debate between Esquilax and His_Majesty.

[Exian]

I was explaining evolution the best I could to my daughter the other day, and we got snagged up on how one species could become another. I told her minor changes add up over long periods of time. She looked like she was just taking my word for it, so I came up with this (thought I'd share it here and let it get picked apart before I told her):

Take 100 generations of any animal. Every 10 generations will be a bench mark for change. Animal 1 produces animal 2, animal 2 produces animal 3-- all the way up to 10. If some how the animal in generation 10 could find an animal from generation 1, they could reproduce, because not enough changes have occurred for speciation. But! once animal 10 produces animal 11, animal 11 can not reproduce with animal 1, because enough small changes have occurred to make it a new species of animal.

I'd also make it clear that its not that clean of a process and it takes way more than 10 generations. Also, there will be a lot more fart jokes. She loves those. So, what's up? Is there a simpler way?

---

Actually, let me apologize- This probably doesn't belong here. The conversation steered this way and I just posted this without thinking about it.

[fr0d0]

Of course it's possible that changes take place rapidly in response to need. I like that theory. Kinda makes sense.

---

That's my grandad 2nd from the left

[Fidel_Castronaut]

There is no fossil record.

There it is again. lol.

I just don't know how someone can see the overwhelming evidence of a fossil record and just say it doesn't exist. Is this guy a real person? I mean really?

[pocaracas]

So H_M has replied!
And he's taken on the kind of debating strategy I like: counter the points of the positive claim head on! kudos for that!... but only that...
You "americans" (yeah, esq, you're now american!) and your "formal" debate things... I hate that format. It does not lead to a discussion, rather a feeble "I'm better, look at me".
Anyway...
On to the meat of the matter.

Microevolution is ok, kinds lead to same kinds.
Chihuahuas and Great Danes are still dogs... If we were to find those two, fossilized, in the same strata, we wouldn't categorize them as being the same species, I'd wager... One cannot physically reproduce with the other! So, in our fuzzy definition of "species", it would not fit.
But in H_M's even fuzzier definition of kind, anything fits.
Wolf and dog. Fox and Wolf. Lion and Cat. Bacteria and Bacteria. Virus and virus.
It must seem like a daunting task to consider that the small changes that lead from wolf to dog to great dane or to chihuahua can't, with a bit more time, lead to great changes that yield a walking dog-like species.... walking and talking, eventually.
Time, more time than we have available, but which can be probed in the form of fossils.
Which brings us to the other meat:

There is no fossil record. When you (in general) find a fossil, the only thing you can logically determine is "this once living thing has now died". Anything beyond that is speculation. There are no transitional fossils..how are you able to determine what is a transitional fossil as opposed to just a specific kind of animal that just died off...what gives you reason to think fossil X is the evolutionary predecessor of fossil and/or animal Y? You certainly don't have the entire fossil track record of any specific animal...which I would EXPECT for you to have considering all of the animals that have died in their respective "phrases".

The entire thing is one big lie.
[...]


The only thing we see from the past are bones of animals that once lived, and are now dead. To draw any conclusion besides that is unwarranted. There is no reason to believe that the animals in the dirt was able to do things that the animals of today havent been observed to do, and that is produce a different "kind" of animal (such as a reptile to a bird).

This here underlines just how much H_M doesn't know about fossils and, as a result, he arrives at wrong conclusions.
Fossils, for the most part, are not bone... they're rock!
And rock can be dated. (foretelling a reply to the dating procedure: "it's a lie. Based on wild speculation that the laws of nature were the same in the past, radioactive isotopes may have decayed much faster in the past, giving the impression of older rocks", right? -.-')

In different strata, so different ages, successively similar, but with noticeable differences, fossils have been found... they are all transitional from one to the next.
And it occurs over millions of years. It's written in the rocks. Just (learn to) read them.
But H_M will refuse that, because he's already preformatted to accept whatever confirms his holy book and reject whatever can deny it.

H_M, I'm sorry if your holy book was written in a time when people didn't know a lot of stuff. Now we know some stuff, enough to see the holy books for what they are... but not enough to convince those heavily indoctrinated as yourself... tough luck... try not to have children, ok?

[FatAndFaithless]

Just read HMs 'opening statement'. I'm a little...disappointed I guess? It's literally the same shit we see on creationist shill sites, "there's no evidence", "it's a religion", "we haven't seen evolution occur".

[abaris]

Just read HMs 'opening statement'. I'm a little...disappointed I guess? It's literally the same shit we see on creationist shill sites, "there's no evidence", "it's a religion", "we haven't seen evolution occur".

What did you expect? These are his talking points after all. There has been little to no deviation from that in all his posts. That's why I find him boring.

[pocaracas]

Opening Statement

I maintain the position that there is no scientific evidence for the theory of macroevolution. In order for my opponent to claim that there is, he needs to provide observational evidence for the theory. In biology text books, students are taught evolution as if it is a fact, when it isn't.

"a fact"... awesome. Cant' wait to see how you can back that up...

I take the position of Kent Hovind, who calls the theory of evolution rightfully what it is, a religion.

Kent Hovind?!
"Residence: Currently incarcerated at the Santa Rosa County Jail, Florida"
Yeah... I wouldn't take this guy's side, if I were you.

It is based on faith, speculation, and relies on the unseen. No one has ever seen macroevolution occur, but we are told that long ago, when no one else was around to see it, these things happened. The reason why no one has ever seen it occur is because "it takes so long for it to occur". Evolutionists use "time" to fill in their gaps of knowledge, and if the God hypothesis is taken out of the equation, evolution is the only game left in town, so it must be used by naturalists as a way to explain why there is so much diversity in living organisms.

The problem is, there just isn't any evidence to support it, and I will make that evident (no pun intended) in the debate.

So I guess you don't know about dating of materials by radioactive decay, also known as Radiometric Dating, huh?
This combined with the discovery of fossils with specific structures in rock strata dated to a particular age, gives us the evidence that different animal species have existed on this planet at different times.
Very roughly:
First bacteria,
Then Arthropods,
Then dinosaurs,
Then mammals.

So, as has been told so many times: go learn!

[abaris]

I take the position of Kent Hovind, who calls the theory of evolution rightfully what it is, a religion.

Kent Hovind?!
"Residence: Currently incarcerated at the Santa Rosa County Jail, Florida"
Yeah... I wouldn't take this guy's side, if I were you.

Just to show everyone, who this Kent Howind chracter actually is and what his credentials are. I'm sure, he's very qualified to talk about evolution based on his mail degree in Christian Education.

In 1988 and 1991 respectively, Hovind was awarded a master's degree and doctorate in Christian Education through correspondence from the non-accredited Patriot University in Colorado Springs, Colorado (now Patriot Bible University in Del Norte, Colorado, which no longer offers this program).[8] Having a website called "Dr. Dino" has provoked some academics to look closely at how Hovind presents his education and credentials. Barbara Forrest, a professor of philosophy, expert on the history of creationism and activist in the creation-evolution controversy, wrote that Hovind's lack of academic training makes it impossible to engage him on a professional level.

His full wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind

[FatAndFaithless]

No shit, sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "there's no evidence" over and over would make it pretty damn hard to "Engage him on a professional level."

[Thumpalumpacus]

(and why did you use a disparaging name?!?)

Anyone naming himself in such a grandiose manner desperately needs a little puncture.