The code that is DNA

[LadyForCamus]

I don’t see what is so hard to understand about the idea that enough small changes from generation to generation will eventually render the “first” and the “last” generation in the series reproductively incompatible. That the changes are small and slow doesn’t render them insignificant, because they’re cumulative.

Then there are extant species like the horseshoe crab, which have accumulated much genetic variation over vast periods of time, but are otherwise morphologically and reproductively the same.

And, based on what you know about evolution via natural selection, can you think of a reason why that would be? Can you not see that the same basic principles of selection pressure that explain cumulative change and speciation in some populations also explain a lack there of in others? You seem like a smart guy, John. Come on, think.

[John 6IX Breezy]

While polyploidy is one of the mechanism for speciation it is mostly restricted to a few species of plants and barely any animal species, so the role of geographic isolation is mostly a major and necessary component to most speciation in the natural world.

You yourself quoted me as saying plants.

[Abaddon_ire]

While polyploidy is one of the mechanism for speciation it is mostly restricted to a few species of plants and barely any animal species, so the role of geographic isolation is mostly a major and necessary component to most speciation in the natural world.

You yourself quoted me as saying plants.

Sure, and you were the one claiming that was the sole means.

But fess up. What is YOUR alternative. After all, it matters not a whit if you could (in some alternate universe) disprove evolution. For the sake of argument, let us simply agree that evolution is false from top to bottom.

What have you to offer in it's stead? Goddunnit?

[LadyForCamus]

LfC asked you to provide evidence for your assertion.  When you failed to do that she rightly decided to not accept your assertion.

If you go through the thread and show me any assertion I've made that I failed to substantiate, I will gladly do so. But don't be disappointed, however, when you can't find the assertions LfC implied, those are still strawman.

Sound fair?

You see, the problem is, when you don’t clearly and adequately describe your position on a subject to your interlocutor, then you leave them with no alternative but to infer your position based on the content of your dialogue. If you don’t want folks to speculate, or misrepresent your position, then you have tell people what it actually is. Otherwise, the strawmen are self inflicted, and I feel not a lick bad for you. Do you think you’re the first Christian to come here and try to pick at evolution, while simultaneously refusing to talk about your own positive beliefs?

[Abaddon_ire]

If you go through the thread and show me any assertion I've made that I failed to substantiate, I will gladly do so. But don't be disappointed, however, when you can't find the assertions LfC implied, those are still strawman.

Sound fair?

You see, the problem is, when you don’t clearly and adequately describe your position on a subject to your interlocutor, then you leave them with no other alternative but to infer your position based on the content of your dialogue. If you don’t want folks to speculate, or misrepresent your position, then you have tell people what isn’t actually is. Otherwise, the strawmen are self inflicted, and I feel not a lick bad for you. Do you think you’re the first Christian to come here and try to pick at evolution, while simultaneously refusing to talk about your own positive beliefs?

And therein lies the rub. Even if evolution was demonstrably falsified (nope) it gets nobody any closer to some imaginary god.

[John 6IX Breezy]

And therein lies the rub. Even if evolution was demonstrably falsified (nope) it gets nobody any closer to some imaginary god.

Therein lies the strawman. You say falsifying evolution doesn't prove God, yet anyone who argues against evolution gets God thrust upon them by the forum. LfC herself admitted I'm not the first to talk about evolution and refuse to talk about any beliefs.

So if you know you're raising strawman, why do it?

[LadyForCamus]

And therein lies the rub. Even if evolution was demonstrably falsified (nope) it gets nobody any closer to some imaginary god.

Therein lies the strawman. You say falsifying evolution doesn't prove God, yet anyone who argues against evolution gets God thrust upon them by the forum. LfC herself admitted I'm not the first to talk about evolution and refuse to talk about any beliefs.

So if you know you're raising strawman, why do it?

Ffs, John. Your religious views, next to your handle, state “Christian”. So, if you don’t accept evolution by natural selection as the best explanation for the diversity of life on earth, which can be easily inferred from the content of your posts on the subject, then it is perfectly reasonable for me or anyone else to also infer that you have an alternative explanation in mind; one that you must think fits the facts better than evolution. That you prefer not to foster a positive case for your belief to a forum full of atheists (I don’t blame you; you’d get hammered) only demonstrates your lack of confidence in the merits of any such argument. Very telling. If you wish people to stop making inferences about whether or not you believe god is responsible for the diversity of life on earth, then tell the truth. I see you skipped over my question to you about the horseshoe crab.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Ffs, John. Your religious views, next to your handle, state “Christian”. So, if you don’t accept evolution by natural selection as the best explanation for the diversity of life on earth, which can be easily inferred from the content of your posts on the subject, then it is perfectly reasonable for me or anyone else to also infer that you have an alternative explanation in mind; one that you must think fits the facts better than evolution. That you prefer not to foster a positive case for your belief to a forum full of atheists (I don’t blame you; you’d get hammered) only demonstrates your lack of confidence in the merits of any such argument. Very telling. If you wish people to stop making inferences about whether or not you believe god is responsible for the diversity of life on earth, then tell the truth. I see you skipped over my question to you about the horseshoe crab.

I don't mind you making inferences, just don't use those inferences as strawman. The processes of evolution aren't even at odds with Christianity, since creation is concerned with origins, not what happens after; evolution is concerned with what happens after, not origins. Strawmen are tempting and easy to make, that's why its important to recognize when one is making them.

[Fake Messiah]

yet anyone who argues against evolution gets God thrust upon them by the forum. LfC herself admitted I'm not the first to talk about evolution and refuse to talk about any beliefs.

So if you know you're raising strawman, why do it?

But you did talk about your beliefs, you yourself started referring to Bible when we said that DNA is too flawed to be designed so cut the crap.

[John 6IX Breezy]

But you did talk about your beliefs, you yourself started referring to Bible when we said that DNA is too flawed to be designed so cut the crap.

That's not a personal belief; irrespective of anyone's opinion of the bible, it attempts to explain imperfection. But I agree however, that responding to my comments on the bible when the bible was being discussed, is not a strawman.