Discussion on debate between Esquilax and His_Majesty.

[Exian]

---

Thank you for the taking the time to critique this Jenny. I have more to say, but I don't want to derail this thread, so, for now, just know I appreciate the help.

---

[Esquilax]

@ Esq

You did a good job rebuting HM opening statement. You could of made a stronger argument against macro evolution. For example,

1. HM thinks "macro" evolution allows for a fish to go to a non-fish. Such a process would be a violation of evolution because it would be a jump from one branch to another branch on the evolutionary tree.

2. Once two groups of a species can no longer produce viable offspring, the micro evolutionary changes between the two groups will grow more pronounce until they are two very different looking species even to a creationist.

Also, I would of demanded a definition of what a kind is. Not examples, but a definition.

That's good advice, some of which I was already planning to use, but saved for the first response round where he pressed the macro point real hard. I'll save the rest for my second round though... assuming it even happens. For whatever reason H_M doesn't seem to get how this works.

[Mystical]

I see, Exian. That is indeed difficult because that process took a very long time, and there are so many transitions from one to the other we can only observe in what we have record of. For me there wasn't one specific piece of information that helped me understand; it was all the little changes that have been observed as a whole. Things I thought to be impossible as a creationist. If I were you, I'd just start showing her what we can see. Fish grow legs, skinks can change how they give birth, whales are genetically shown to have common descent with land animals.

Perhaps there are child science courses you can order? They teach evolution all over the world, after all. There's kids version websites of Nasa and National Geographic, which theists around here would actually benefit from taking a look at, too.

Personally I would have her look into animals and how they adapt to their environment. Cold blooded, and warm blooded, and how they adapt to climate or environmental changes.
My personal favorite is the synapsid Dimetrodon.
Also, mutations are comprehendible for children when they look at their own species. It's one of the first things kids study! Their parents, their peers.. Mutations are the copying process gone awry; elsewise you'd be a clone of your parent, etc.


Just some ramblings from my brain, here. Sorry I can't be of more help

[simplemoss]

I don't understand how a comment like "reptiles don't give birth too birds" implying therefore evolution isn't real wasn't attacked more viciously by esquilax?

[Esquilax]

I don't understand how a comment like "reptiles don't I've birth too birds" implying therefore evolution isn't real wasn't attacked more viciously by esquilax?

Because as far as I could tell, that wasn't what he was saying. Instead, he was implying that no matter the small "microevolution" (read: evolution) changes that occur, they would never be sufficient to evolve a reptile into a bird, which is what the current science indicates.

I'm more willing to be charitable with my interpretations when the underlying point is nothing more than an assertion which requires justification, but received none. The guy doesn't have a leg to stand on in the best of cases, I don't need to give him an out by potentially misinterpreting what he's saying so he can dodge by harping on that point instead of addressing the actual issue.

[Mystic]

Because as far as I could tell, that wasn't what he was saying. Instead, he was implying that no matter the small "microevolution" (read: evolution) changes that occur, they would never be sufficient to evolve a reptile into a bird, which is what the current science indicates.


I'm more willing to be charitable with my interpretations when the underlying point is nothing more than an assertion which requires justification, but received none. The guy doesn't have a leg to stand on in the best of cases, I don't need to give him an out by potentially misinterpreting what he's saying so he can dodge by harping on that point instead of addressing the actual issue.

Logically, all that he has to argue, is that for all we know, it's impossible that small changes over time would ever be sufficient to make a large enough change to change a reptile to a bird.

Since the thread is that we have sufficient evidence to believe in evolution, it would be on you to prove it.

He doesn't have to argue or prove it, this time, it's on you, who is making the claim that the evidence is on your side.

[Esquilax]

Logically, all that he has to argue, is that for all we know, it's impossible that small changes over time would ever be sufficient to make a large enough change to change a reptile to a bird.

But why would it be impossible? What mechanism exists that would stop the changes from accumulating to the point where a new species designation would be required? I argued this in the thread; the term species isn't some inherent, magic boundary that can never be crossed. It's just a defintional label applied by human beings; saying that a new species has emerged just means that the organism has accumulated enough little changes that it's too different to be called the same species as its ancestor. This is a simple, logical observation; we know the small changes occur, and we know of no mechanism that would restrict them from crossing the artificially constructed human made species lines, therefore we have no reason to think they won't.

If he wanted to argue that it's impossible- and he did- then he's making an additional claim with its own burden of proof... that he hasn't bothered supporting. Meanwhile, there's plenty of evidence for my side, which I've actually posted for all to see.

Since the thread is that we have sufficient evidence to believe in evolution, it would be on you to prove it.

He doesn't have to argue or prove it, this time, it's on you, who is making the claim that the evidence is on your side.

And when I slapped down such evidence, his response was tantamount to a "nuh uh!"

[Esquilax]

Sooo... the debate's over. We had to shut it down because it turns out my opponent was deliberately disregarding the rules, not merely mistaken about them. He'd indicated to me that he had read and understood them prior to the debate, but once inside made statements demonstrating that he'd either done neither, or didn't care about what we'd agreed upon beforehand, opting to change the rules mid-debate without telling me or anyone else, to suit himself.

Frankly, I'm disappointed with this outcome, but there really wasn't anything else to be done.

[Jackalope]

[Esquilax]

Any thoughts, fellows? I know the feedback has been pretty universal so far, but if anyone has any closing remarks now's the time.