Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Challenging Christian Hillbilly on evolution.

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 3
 [ 41 posts ] 
Challenging Christian Hillbilly on evolution.
Author Message
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 207Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Challenging Christian Hillbilly on evolution.

Last night, I had the pleasure to listen to a discussion during the hangout Open Discussion #171 on youtube channel "Debate Colosseum". I listened for not more than five minutes of the guy called Christian Hillbilly (CH). The typical creationist falsehoods of "information" and 99% mutations being harmful or deleterious spewed out of CH's mouth. If you look him up on youtube, he has the same name with his phone number right next to it. This guy is demanding for attention, and I am willing to give him the attention, not the type he wants but the type he deserves (or rather needs).

My challenge is this:

Description of the challenge
My goal is to prove to his satisfaction that the statement "evolution happens" is a fact,
that the theory of evolution is the best current explanation for biodiversity
and that it is the only explanation for biodiversity that qualifies as a scientific theory.

Some definitions:

Fact: A point of data that is true by observation - something that is verifiable by objective means.
Example: the statement "objects fall down if no force is counteracting it" is a fact.

Evidence: A fact or facts that concordant with or otherwise support one conclusion over any other. A fact that can be accounted for by multiple explanations doesn't qualify as evidence. Only if it can be accounted for by one, then it qualifies as evidence.

Proof: In the legal sense, an overwhelming preponderance of evidence supporting a proposition, which shows that this proposition is at least mostly true beyond reasonable doubt.

Thus, in order for me to prove evolution, all I have to give are multiple facts supporting the theory of evolution, which cannot be accounted for by any other explanation.

More definitions:

Hypothesis: A potential explanation for a phenomenon, which is potentially falsifiable and makes specific predictions on what the results would be of future tests, experimentations, observations and discoveries. If the hypothesis is true we should expect X if it is false we should expect Y.

Scientific Law: A general statements or mathematical formula of science that is always true under specific circumstances.
Example Objects with mass attract each other with a force that is proportional to the mass of the objects in question and the gravitational constant and is squared inversely proportional to the distance of the objects. Or to put it in mathematics.
Image

Science: A systematic process with the specific goal to improve the understanding of the natural world in practical application or math, by using, along with several principles, "methodological naturalism" aka the scientific method - science can only investigate what can be objectively observed, tested and understood i.e. that which are natural as in part of the natural (physical, material, etc) world, as opposed to the supernatural (that which is outside perceptible reality). Science involves observation and experimentation, falsifiable hypotheses and constructing scientific theories that provide explanations for natural phenomena.

Scientific theory: A body of knowledge that unifies all known relevant facts, hypotheses, and scientific laws, under a field of study. It is a proposed explanation, which posits mechanism(s) to explain a set of related facts/phenomena. Theories represents the highest form of confidence science can achieve in understanding nature. All scientific theories have to be a well-substantiated explanation, where the hypotheses/predictions of which have been repeatedly tested and confirmed by experiments and observation. Scientific theories are never considered fixed or complete, they are continuously being improved by revising or building upon their frame work, due to new discoveries.

Example of fields of science and their central theories, although some overlap with other fields especially those within physics.
Classical physics:
- Classical (Newtonian) mechanics of motion
- Kinetic theory (thermodynamics)
- Electromagnetic theory
- Strong interaction
- Weak interaction
- (Newtonian) Theory of gravity

Modern physics (improved upon the classical physics):
- (Einsteins) Theory of relativity
----- Special theory of relativity (classical motion)
----- General theory of relativity (gravity)
- Quantum theory
----- Quantum thermodynamics
----- Quantum field theory, which produced the standard model of particle physics often dubbed as "the theory of almost everything".
QFT combines three (electromagnetic-, weak- and strong) of the four fundamental forces.
------------------ Quantum chromodynamics (QCD, strong force)
------------- Electro-Weak theory (EWT, combines the electromagnetic- and weak force)
------------------ Quantum electrodynamics (QED, electromagnetic force)
------------------ Quantum flavordynamics (QFD, weak force)
The major goal of physicists is to come up with a quantum mechanical description of the fourth fundamental force (gravity) and combine it with the rest in a unifying theory of everything.

Cosmology:
- Big bang theory
- heliocentric theory (earth revolves around the sun)
- Geospheric theory (earth is a sphere)

Geology:
- Plate tectonic theory

Chemistry:
- Atomic theory

Medicine:
- Germ theory of disease

Biology:
- Cell theory
- Theory of evolution

Obscure examples:
- Economic theory
- Music theory
- Shannon information theory
- Chaos theory

Also since the challenge involve "evolution" and the theory of evolution, we need to specify what those words mean also.

Evolution (in context of biology): In general usage, "evolution" can be synonymous with "change" or "development", but within the context of science and this challenge, evolution specifically refers to an aspect of biology - in which case, it is summarily defined as "Descent with Inherent [genetic] modification". Paraphrased for clarity, it specifically is a process of changing allele frequencies among reproductive populations over generations, which leads to changes in either the morphology and/or physiology of descendant subsets. When compiled over many generations, these changes can expand biodiversity when increasing variation between genetically-isolated groups eventually lead to one or more descendant branches that are increasingly distinct from their ancestors and/or cousins. - Or if you prefer, the process by which life forms diversify via "descent with modification".

Micro-evolution: Small scale evolution that happens within a species or within an interbreeding population.

Macro-evolution: Large scale evolution that happens above the species level - between different species or interbreeding populations. The emergence of new taxa at or above the species level, also known as speciation (= formation of a new species)

The theory of evolution: The unifying theory of biology that explains the unity and diversity of life and its history, in which life diversified via "Descent with modification" (aka evolution) from a series of flowering lineages connected by common ancestry; as well as explaining and describing why and how the process of evolution happens by several mechanisms like natural selection, sexual selection, genetic drift, etc. The theory overlaps and concords with several fields of science primarily biology: cellular biology, anatomy, especially genetics and taxonomy, but also geology and paleontology.

NOTE: Evolution is defined as "Descent with inherent modification" and you cannot have descendants without ancestors, thus evolution doesn't explain the origins of life nor what happened before it like the big bang nor was it meant to explain these, those are other subjects not relevant to evolution. Just like the theory of gravity explains the interaction of matter, not how matter originated, the theory of evolution explains how life diversifies, not how it originated. Those who are thinking that the theory of evolution includes abiogenesis, planetary accretion, nuclear synthesis, stellar formation and big bang are having a gross misconception.
Image
The misconception perpetuated by the convicted felon non other than Kent Hovind, put on a chick track.
Also evolution isn't a religion either, despite allegations of those who are desperate to project their own flaws onto others, pretending that there is a level playing field or that two options are somehow equal.
Image

Religion: A doctrine of ritual traditions, ceremonies, and associated dogma of a faith-based belief system which posits a promise, that some element of ‘self’ (be it a soul, consciousness, or memories, etc.) may, in some sense, continue beyond the death of the physical being.

Many people, with many different religions (christian, muslim, jew, etc), even those that believe in God accept evolution, so evolution isn't atheism or anti-God either. "Evolutionism/Darwinism" is in the same sense a religion and a scientific theory as "Gravitism/Newtonism" is.
Image

Criteria of the challenge
I have done this type of challenge before and I know from experience that many people want this discussion to go like me throwing facts over their heads and they will miss it each point obtusely, either deliberate or unintended, so that they can dismiss each an every tree in order to not deny the forest (analogy with forest and tree). Often by the common thoughtless phrases "Goddidit" or "That doesn't prove anything"
But I won't play that game of ducking and dodging.
This won't be a debate, rather it will be an interactive discussion where I will ask direct questions and I will expect a direct answer for each from CH and visa versa.

We will do this in one step at a time to make the replies short. And this process goes like this:

1. It will require an education and explanations on what the terms mean. I have given several definitions in this post and I will ask you to go through all of them and understand what they mean, if you don't, ask which one and specify what you don't understand. In order to communicate we must first both know what the terms, that we are using, means. And giving evidence for evolution to someone who doesn't understand what evolution and other relevant terms means, is pointless. Sometimes when a new term comes up, we will have give a solid definition to make sure we are on the same page.

2. After the basic understanding is established, I will be laying out the evidence for evolution. In small doses. I will ask which one you accept and which ones you don't or don't understand yet, in which case I will explain it and I will have provide scientific peer reviewed literature or .edu sites, backing it up or I can merely demonstrate the points directly by giving pictures of let's say fossils, etc. Each point will have to be acknowledge before we progress to the next.

3. We will also during our discussion go through what your understanding of the subject is and what you would want to see about evolution and your questions about it. If they are based on misconceptions, I will correct you on them. If they are legit point, I will address them for you. Once again, each point has to be acknowledge before we progress to the next.

You cannot ask non-sequitur questions nor questions that need clarification first while expecting an immediate answer.
For example if you ask for examples of mutations increase in information I will demand first that you define what genetic information is and how to measure it. If you cannot, this question is ignored.

Side tracking or attempts to change the subject will be pointed out and ignored and I will keep you focussed on the subject at hand
If you want to discuss abiogenesis, the origin of the universe or the existence of God and Jesus, than I have to disappoint you. None of those are relevant to the subject. I can declare for the sake of argument that abiogenesis, big bang cosmology are all wrong and that God exists, and all that would have no effect on the subject of the challenge. Also obvious attempts to side track like challenges to a public debate or hangout will be ignored also.

Repeatedly ignoring direct questions and/or not acknowledging points means you fail the challenge.
There is no limit like "three strikes your out". If you don't answer the question I will repeatedly ask it until I get an direct adequate answer or a clarification response.

Also to clarify, these rules apply to both of us. If I don't answer your question or don't come back with a clarification, feel free to point that out.

If you accept the challenge, this conversation will end in one of these ways
1. I will fail the challenge.
2. You will accept on public record that my challenge has been met and thus I succeeded.
3. You will quickly ignore direct questions and not acknowledging points repeatedly until you run away to avoid the admission that my challenge has been met. And hoping that no one will think that you ran away, while this conversation with all my repeated questions will stay here on the LoR for everyone to clearly see that you indeed ran away. In which case you fail the challenge for not participating.

Do you accept the challenge and its criteria so we can start? Make an account on the League of Reason and post here either a clear YES or a NO.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Last edited by Nesslig20 on Wed Feb 15, 2017 7:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Fri Jul 29, 2016 4:30 pm
RhedUser avatarPosts: 260Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:01 amLocation: Currently on the sofa Gender: Male

Post Re: Challenging Christian Hillbilly on evolution.

Hello Nessilg20

Nesslig20 wrote:Evolution is defined as "Descent with inherent modification" and you cannot have descendants without ancestors


Does the above statement have a limit or boundary? Meaning, do all living things come from a single ancestor (i.e. the Evolutionary Tree of Life) or all living things come from multiple ancestors (i.e. the Orchard)?
If evolution was in the newspaper, it would be in the funnies
Wed Aug 03, 2016 11:00 pm
Grumpy SantaPosts: 272Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 6:27 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Challenging Christian Hillbilly on evolution.

Rhed wrote:Hello Nessilg20

Nesslig20 wrote:Evolution is defined as "Descent with inherent modification" and you cannot have descendants without ancestors


Does the above statement have a limit or boundary? Meaning, do all living things come from a single ancestor (i.e. the Evolutionary Tree of Life) or all living things come from multiple ancestors (i.e. the Orchard)?


My understanding is that evolution begins with self-replication but does not include the process that led to self-replicating molecules.
J. R. R. Tolkien was a Middle Earth Creationist.
Thu Aug 04, 2016 12:59 pm
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 207Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Challenging Christian Hillbilly on evolution.

Rhed wrote:Hello Nessilg20

Nesslig20 wrote:Evolution is defined as "Descent with inherent modification" and you cannot have descendants without ancestors


Does the above statement have a limit or boundary? Meaning, do all living things come from a single ancestor (i.e. the Evolutionary Tree of Life) or all living things come from multiple ancestors (i.e. the Orchard)?


If you go to the definition of the theory of evolution it states this

The theory of evolution: The unifying theory of biology that explains the unity and diversity of life and its history, in which life diversified via "Descent with modification" (aka evolution) from a series of flowering lineages connected by common ancestry; as well as explaining and describing why and how the process of evolution happens by several mechanisms like natural selection, sexual selection, genetic drift, etc. The theory overlaps and concords with several fields of science primarily biology: cellular biology, anatomy, especially genetics and taxonomy, but also geology and paleontology.

Thus all living things are biologically related, however the relatedness can be more complex than it seems. The usual simple depiction of common ancestry is a twin-nested hierarchy depicted here below:
Image
This simplified depiction of the tree of life (all life) is most accurate (KEEP READING) when it comes to multi cellular life. Organisms exhibit what is known as horizontal gene transfer where genetic material gets introduced in an organism often from another one but not from any ancestor or parent. It is rather like one of your cousins touching you and you get a gene from him/her but this doesn't happen with humans, the only horizontal gene transfer that happens in multi cellular organisms like humans is we get infected with ERV (virus DNA). In single celled organisms that happens more often with each other. If you represent the effect of HGT with a tree, this below is how it would look like.
Image

This effect makes determining the phylogeny with genetics more difficult, but not impossible. With the case of multi cellular organisms, the effects of HGT isn't enough to obscure the phylogeny, because it is rare with them. Even with single celled eukaryotes, the effect is more prominent than with multi cellular ones but since they have a nucleus, HGT doesn't occur as often as with bacteria and archaea. With them the relationship is clouded by HGT which makes it extremely hard to determine wether the close relationship we recognize in the genome is the result of HGT between distant organisms or being descendants from recent common ancestry.

Because of this the tree of life at its single cellular base is more like a web than a tree, thus the tree grows not out of a single root or base, nor has it a single definitive trunk. As a whole, it looks more like a banyan rather than an oak but it is STILL one singel tree.
Image
Image

If you focus on only animal life, than the oak tree pattern begins to emerge. But otherwise, all life is biologically related by common ancestry plus allot of horizontal gene transfer.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Last edited by Nesslig20 on Thu Aug 04, 2016 7:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Thu Aug 04, 2016 3:46 pm
WarKChat ModeratorUser avatarPosts: 1157Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 9:59 am Gender: Tree

Post Re: Challenging Christian Hillbilly on evolution.

Rhed wrote:Hello Nessilg20

Nesslig20 wrote:Evolution is defined as "Descent with inherent modification" and you cannot have descendants without ancestors


Does the above statement have a limit or boundary? Meaning, do all living things come from a single ancestor (i.e. the Evolutionary Tree of Life) or all living things come from multiple ancestors (i.e. the Orchard)?


Could you give us an example of two unrelated organisms?
Did you see that ludicrous display last night?
Thu Aug 04, 2016 5:19 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3123Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Challenging Christian Hillbilly on evolution.

Nesslig20 wrote:This effect makes determining the phylogeny with genetics, but not impossible.


I am pretty sure that is not how you wanted that sentence to come out.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Thu Aug 04, 2016 6:51 pm
YIM WWW
RhedUser avatarPosts: 260Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:01 amLocation: Currently on the sofa Gender: Male

Post Re: Challenging Christian Hillbilly on evolution.

WarK wrote:Could you give us an example of two unrelated organisms?



In evolution terms, here is one example - Sugar Glider and the Flying Squirrel.

Sugar Glider:
Image

Flying Squirrel:
Image
If evolution was in the newspaper, it would be in the funnies
Thu Aug 04, 2016 7:15 pm
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 207Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Challenging Christian Hillbilly on evolution.

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
Nesslig20 wrote:This effect makes determining the phylogeny with genetics, but not impossible.


I am pretty sure that is not how you wanted that sentence to come out.


Yup, thanks. Made the correction.

And Rhed, those two are related in evolutionary terms.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Thu Aug 04, 2016 7:39 pm
WarKChat ModeratorUser avatarPosts: 1157Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 9:59 am Gender: Tree

Post Re: Challenging Christian Hillbilly on evolution.

Rhed wrote:
WarK wrote:Could you give us an example of two unrelated organisms?



In evolution terms, here is one example - Sugar Glider and the Flying Squirrel.

Sugar Glider:
Image

Flying Squirrel:
Image


I asked you to give two examples of species that ARE NOT related and you give me two mammals?
Did you see that ludicrous display last night?
Thu Aug 04, 2016 7:40 pm
RhedUser avatarPosts: 260Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:01 amLocation: Currently on the sofa Gender: Male

Post Re: Challenging Christian Hillbilly on evolution.

WarK wrote:I asked you to give two examples of species that ARE NOT related and you give me two mammals?


They are both mammals yes, but one is a marsupial mammal and the other a placental mammal. Please be more specific.
If evolution was in the newspaper, it would be in the funnies
Thu Aug 04, 2016 10:06 pm
RhedUser avatarPosts: 260Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:01 amLocation: Currently on the sofa Gender: Male

Post Re: Challenging Christian Hillbilly on evolution.

WarK wrote:I asked you to give two examples of species that ARE NOT related and you give me two mammals?



    Halobacteria and an elephant

    E. Coli and a firefly

    An elephant and a firefly

Is this what you are asking? Or claim they are related because evolution says all life is related?
If evolution was in the newspaper, it would be in the funnies
Fri Aug 05, 2016 2:32 am
RhedUser avatarPosts: 260Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:01 amLocation: Currently on the sofa Gender: Male

Post Re: Challenging Christian Hillbilly on evolution.

Nesslig20 wrote:
If you go to the definition of the theory of evolution it states this

The theory of evolution: The unifying theory of biology that explains the unity and diversity of life and its history, in which life diversified via "Descent with modification" (aka evolution) from a series of flowering lineages connected by common ancestry; as well as explaining and describing why and how the process of evolution happens by several mechanisms like natural selection, sexual selection, genetic drift, etc. The theory overlaps and concords with several fields of science primarily biology: cellular biology, anatomy, especially genetics and taxonomy, but also geology and paleontology.

Thus all living things are biologically related, however the relatedness can be more complex than it seems. The usual simple depiction of common ancestry is a twin-nested hierarchy depicted here below:
Image
This simplified depiction of the tree of life (all life) is most accurate (KEEP READING) when it comes to multi cellular life. Organisms exhibit what is known as horizontal gene transfer where genetic material gets introduced in an organism often from another one but not from any ancestor or parent. It is rather like one of your cousins touching you and you get a gene from him/her but this doesn't happen with humans, the only horizontal gene transfer that happens in multi cellular organisms like humans is we get infected with ERV (virus DNA). In single celled organisms that happens more often with each other. If you represent the effect of HGT with a tree, this below is how it would look like.
Image

This effect makes determining the phylogeny with genetics more difficult, but not impossible. With the case of multi cellular organisms, the effects of HGT isn't enough to obscure the phylogeny, because it is rare with them. Even with single celled eukaryotes, the effect is more prominent than with multi cellular ones but since they have a nucleus, HGT doesn't occur as often as with bacteria and archaea. With them the relationship is clouded by HGT which makes it extremely hard to determine wether the close relationship we recognize in the genome is the result of HGT between distant organisms or being descendants from recent common ancestry.

Because of this the tree of life at its single cellular base is more like a web than a tree, thus the tree grows not out of a single root or base, nor has it a single definitive trunk. As a whole, it looks more like a banyan rather than an oak but it is STILL one singel tree.
Image
Image

If you focus on only animal life, than the oak tree pattern begins to emerge. But otherwise, all life is biologically related by common ancestry plus allot of horizontal gene transfer.


In your OP, you stated:

"Fact: A point of data that is true by observation - something that is verifiable by objective means.
Example: the statement "objects fall down if no force is counteracting it" is a fact."


Would you classify a single banyan tree (Bacteria, Archaea, Eukaryotes) as a fact? Or more so a theory? If a theory, would the domains of life be falsifiable?

Falsifiability or refutability is the logical possibility that an assertion could be shown false by a particular observation or physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, it means that if the statement were false, then its falsehood could be demonstrated.
If evolution was in the newspaper, it would be in the funnies
Fri Aug 05, 2016 2:46 am
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 207Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Challenging Christian Hillbilly on evolution.

Rhed wrote:In your OP, you stated:

"Fact: A point of data that is true by observation - something that is verifiable by objective means.
Example: the statement "objects fall down if no force is counteracting it" is a fact."


Would you classify a single banyan tree (Bacteria, Archaea, Eukaryotes) as a fact? Or more so a theory? If a theory, would the domains of life be falsifiable?

Falsifiability or refutability is the logical possibility that an assertion could be shown false by a particular observation or physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, it means that if the statement were false, then its falsehood could be demonstrated.


I'll be happy to classify it as part of the theory since a theory is "higher" than facts because it is made of facts, see the definition of Scientific theory in my OP.

I am not sure what you mean wether the domains of life would be falsifiable? The domains are the largest set of categories that divides all life in three subsets, but that is a fact. I guess they are falsifiable if you found an organism that doesn't belong to either three domains, but so far none have found to my knowledge.

But even if you did, that wouldn't falsify evolutionary theory. We have discovered archaea at one time, but it just became another domain. If you want to know how the theory is falsifiable I suggest watching the "Falsifying Phylogeny" series by Aronra.

These three here are the most important ones.

Discussing the importants of the classification of life forms, with phylogeny and why it is the strongest evidence for common ancestry. All organisms fit classification as you would expect from evolution, but none violate that rule as such every imagined creature does. Thus if you found something like a pegasus, that wouldn't fit in phylogeny because that is impossible according to evolutionary theory itself.


Discussing the laws that are applicable to evolutionary theory and gives a funny way to falsify phylogeny. Creationists often demand absurd things what they would accept as proof for evolutionary theory, but what they are asking for is so absurd that if we were to actually produce what they asked for, we would ironically disprove the very thing they want us to prove.


A challenge to creationist to identify the created "kinds" in life. If evolution by common ancestry is false, then somewhere in taxonomy - the phylogeny of organisms would collapse, meaning what we once thought was related to everything else isn't actually related anything else. However when is that point and how can we tell? As yet, no one has identified that.

Are all Siamese cats with long faces..
Image
related to the short-face Persians cats?
Image

Are all these cats related to other domestic cats even the ones that are hairless
Image
Or tailless?
Image

Are all domesticated cats related to the wild varieties like the African wild cat (ancestor of all domestic cats, here below)?
Image
And what about the European wild cat,
Image
the Sand Cat,
Image
the Black-footed Cat,
Image
the Jungle Cat
Image
and all other members of the genus felis?

Are all members of the genus felis related to the Pallas Cat,
Image
Leopard Cat,
Image
the semi aquatic Flat-headed Cat
Image
and all other members of the genus Prionailurus?

Are all mentioned so far related to all Pumas like the Cougar
Image
and the Jaguarundi
Image
and related to all Cheetahs of the genus Acinonyx?
Image

Are all these also related the Bobcat and all other members of the order Lynx?
Image

Are all of thus far related related to all South-American cats of the order Leopardus like the Ocelot
Image

Are all of thus far related to all members of the genus Caracal like the Caracal
Image
and the Serval.
Image

All all these so far related to all members of Pardofelis like the Marbled cat
Image
as well as any other Felines (members of the subfamily Felinae)?

Are all Felines related to all Pantherines of the subfamily Pantherinae like members of the genus Panthera like Lions,
Image
Tigers,
Image
Jaguars,
Image
the leopard
Image
and the snow leopard,
Image
and the Clouded Leopard of the genus Neofelis?
Image

A summary of the ones mentioned thus far (below)
Image

Are all the extant Felids (=Cats), which are Felines and Pantherines, related to all the extinct felids such as Machairodontines like the famous Smilodon (saber tooth cat)?
Image
As well as Pseudaelurus (the ancestor of all mentioned thus far)?
Image
And also related to Proailurus ("the first cat", the ancestor of all extant and extinct felids)?
Image

Are all Felids related to the extinct "false-cats" like Barbourofelids such as Barbourofelis
Image
And Nimravids such as Nimravus?
Image

And what about tree dwelling Prionodontids (aka Linsangs),
Image
and allot more such as Herpestids (Mongooses),
Image
Euplerids, like the very cat-like fossa
Image
or the viverrid-like striped civet.
Image
And true Viverrids like the banded palm civet
Image
And Hyaenids (or simply Hyenas), the common ancestor of all Hyenas (Plioviverrops), would look like the banded palm civet.
Image
And Nandinia (the African Palm Civit), most primitive of all extant feliforms,
Image
And to all other Feliforms?

Are all Feliforms related to all other Carnivores like Caniforms (dogs, bears, weasels, seals, etc)?
Image

And are all these related to the earliest Carnivores, the Miacids (the common ancestors of both dogs and cats as well as their relatives)?
Image

Are All Carnivores related to all other Laurasiatherians, placental mammals and other mammals?
Image

Remember, just guessing where the kinds are based on your gut feeling isn't enough. You have to give criteria that we can use to tell when relatedness ends and the created kinds begins.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Last edited by Nesslig20 on Sat Aug 06, 2016 11:52 am, edited 3 times in total.
Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:20 pm
WarKChat ModeratorUser avatarPosts: 1157Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 9:59 am Gender: Tree

Post Re: Challenging Christian Hillbilly on evolution.

Rhed wrote:
WarK wrote:I asked you to give two examples of species that ARE NOT related and you give me two mammals?



    Halobacteria and an elephant

    E. Coli and a firefly

    An elephant and a firefly

Is this what you are asking? Or claim they are related because evolution says all life is related?


I asked for 2 unrelated organism, that is, organism that don't share a common ancestor. You still haven't provided such an example.

If creationism is correct you should have no problem pointing out two organism that don't share a common ancestor.
Did you see that ludicrous display last night?
Fri Aug 05, 2016 4:41 pm
RhedUser avatarPosts: 260Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:01 amLocation: Currently on the sofa Gender: Male

Post Re: Challenging Christian Hillbilly on evolution.

WarK wrote:
I asked for 2 unrelated organism, that is, organism that don't share a common ancestor. You still haven't provided such an example.

If creationism is correct you should have no problem pointing out two organism that don't share a common ancestor.


I see, you are asking from a Creation point of view. While new evidence is always changing and updating the Tree of Life or the Orchard of Life, I would say, for example, there is the horse kind, rhino kind, and bear kind. Each kind has a common ancestor, but the horse, rhino, and bear do not share a common ancestor as even going further back to the eukaryotic cell shown in the Tree of Life.
If evolution was in the newspaper, it would be in the funnies
Sun Aug 07, 2016 12:52 am
WarKChat ModeratorUser avatarPosts: 1157Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 9:59 am Gender: Tree

Post Re: Challenging Christian Hillbilly on evolution.

Rhed wrote:
I see, you are asking from a Creation point of view. While new evidence is always changing and updating the Tree of Life or the Orchard of Life, I would say, for example, there is the horse kind, rhino kind, and bear kind. Each kind has a common ancestor, but the horse, rhino, and bear do not share a common ancestor as even going further back to the eukaryotic cell shown in the Tree of Life.


Horses, rhinos and bears are all mammals and they all have a common ancestor. All life on earth has a common ancestor.

If creationism was right you could show us species that are unrelated. You can't.
Did you see that ludicrous display last night?
Sun Aug 07, 2016 9:12 am
LaurensSocial EditorUser avatarPosts: 2924Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 11:24 pmLocation: Norwich UK Gender: Male

Post Re: Challenging Christian Hillbilly on evolution.

Rhed wrote:
WarK wrote:
I asked for 2 unrelated organism, that is, organism that don't share a common ancestor. You still haven't provided such an example.

If creationism is correct you should have no problem pointing out two organism that don't share a common ancestor.


I see, you are asking from a Creation point of view. While new evidence is always changing and updating the Tree of Life or the Orchard of Life, I would say, for example, there is the horse kind, rhino kind, and bear kind. Each kind has a common ancestor, but the horse, rhino, and bear do not share a common ancestor as even going further back to the eukaryotic cell shown in the Tree of Life.


Define kind in specific biological terms.

Not just "animals that look kinda the same", I want a biological definition.
Like the League of Reason on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter

Shameless Self-Promotion
Listen to my music on Soundcloud
Like my music page on Facebook
Sun Aug 07, 2016 9:42 am
Gnug215ModeratorUser avatarPosts: 2474Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 10:31 pm

Post Re: Challenging Christian Hillbilly on evolution.

Rhed wrote:
WarK wrote:
I asked for 2 unrelated organism, that is, organism that don't share a common ancestor. You still haven't provided such an example.

If creationism is correct you should have no problem pointing out two organism that don't share a common ancestor.


I see, you are asking from a Creation point of view. While new evidence is always changing and updating the Tree of Life or the Orchard of Life, I would say, for example, there is the horse kind, rhino kind, and bear kind. Each kind has a common ancestor, but the horse, rhino, and bear do not share a common ancestor as even going further back to the eukaryotic cell shown in the Tree of Life.



Shouldn't this pattern of several distinct, separate common ancestors arising suddenly at the same point be somehow visible in the genes?
- Gnug215

YouTube channel:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Gnug215


The horse is a ferocious predator.
Sun Aug 07, 2016 12:39 pm
RhedUser avatarPosts: 260Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:01 amLocation: Currently on the sofa Gender: Male

Post Re: Challenging Christian Hillbilly on evolution.

Rhed wrote:
I see, you are asking from a Creation point of view. While new evidence is always changing and updating the Tree of Life or the Orchard of Life, I would say, for example, there is the horse kind, rhino kind, and bear kind. Each kind has a common ancestor, but the horse, rhino, and bear do not share a common ancestor as even going further back to the eukaryotic cell shown in the Tree of Life.


WarK wrote:Horses, rhinos and bears are all mammals and they all have a common ancestor. All life on earth has a common ancestor.

If creationism was right you could show us species that are unrelated. You can't.


All mammals don't share a common ancestor, and the field of phylogenetics show just that.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... 24_332-340

Many of the first studies to examine the con-
flicting signal of different genes have found considerable
discordance across gene trees: studies of hominids [9–11],
pines [12], cichlids [13], finches [14], grasshoppers [15] and
fruit flies [16] have all detected genealogical discordance so
widespread that no single tree topology predominates
If evolution was in the newspaper, it would be in the funnies
Sun Aug 07, 2016 2:55 pm
WarKChat ModeratorUser avatarPosts: 1157Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 9:59 am Gender: Tree

Post Re: Challenging Christian Hillbilly on evolution.

Rhed wrote:All mammals don't share a common ancestor, and the field of phylogenetics show just that.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... 24_332-340


So show us two mammal species that don't share a common ancestor. You won't. Because all mammals share a common ancestor as does all life on earth. You'll just keep dodging this, won't you?

I'm guessing that you linked that paper only because you spotted the word discordance. I myself am not qualified to explain this paper so I'll wait for someone who knows this stuff. Nowhere in that paper does it say that some mammals aren't related.
Did you see that ludicrous display last night?
Sun Aug 07, 2016 4:48 pm
Next
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 3
 [ 41 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests