Evolutionist shock tactics

An evolutionist resorts to shock tactics in this creation v evolution debate.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Plimer
• Gish
• creationist
• evolutionist
• creation
• evolution
• debate
• argument
• electric
• shock

[AceofDlamonds]

@puupembnc

Cladistics is awesome. I like how you refer to modern taxonomy as "some artificially imposed classificiation system".

Now animals are classified based on genetic ancestry/estimated genetic variation. Phenotypic traits reinforce the relationships......

[xnobody777x]

censored comments? fuck you.

[dogooda12]

I knew just by lookin at the dude that he was gonna get owned!

[qabala]

@puupembnc

You'll get no argument from me that cladistics are imposed (for the sake universal nomenclature), however it does not fly in the face of genetics in any way.

The tests used by geneticists to determine biological relationship between people for the courts are the same tests they use to determine relation between species (like crocodiles and birds). In effect, genetics amount to legal proof of evolution.

[puupembnc]

@qabala

If what you`re saying is that all the beasts & plants of the earth `reproduce after their kind` then you`ll get no argument from me, for obvious reasons!

However, if you`re going to claim that just because some artificially imposed classification system puts, say, crocodiles and birds in the same clade (Archosauria), then this means they`re related, then you`ve lost me; this flies in the face of observed genetic processes.

Cladistics is just moving the Linnaean goalposts.

[KStealed]

im not scientific nor astronomist nor religious, but like you, i have the capability to observe and like you, i find this under microscopes and that above telescopes pretty similar. Delightful misterious scenaries far from our comprehension most of the times. Now ill let you the freedom to decide if this planet we live in is a cell of a bigger organism and we are parasites inside, or we are the alpha specie rocking down the sesame street in the name of god

[kandtell]

Cont...

However there is an enormous problem with this explanation which for evolutionary scientists is enough to make it un-tenable.

This problem is that we *share* other apparent events with Chimps and other closely related species.

The closer our relatedness the more of these events we share and the more statistically "recent" looking ones we find.

One example is the loss of the Gene required to manufacture vitamin C.

[kandtell]

Cont…

To return to your main question, yes, to an extent you are correct.

The only alternative explanation to CA I have seen which agrees with the evidence of the human ch2 fusion site is one supported for example by Casey Luskin.

In this explanation our ancestors started with DNA designed very similar to that of the ancestors of chimps, and there was then a fusion event in our ancestor and not in the ancestry of the other great apes.

cont...

[kandtell]

cont...

The vast majority of new species (all as far as I know) come about over many generations due to the accumulation of many differences until a point in time where two groups of individuals can be said to be separate species (usually because they can no longer interbreed but even this is a fuzzy definition).

Also, as I said earlier, the fusion is not though to have happened to humans, but to our hominid ancestors.

Still the same species of hominids.

cont...

[kandtell]

@puupembnc

A couple of quick pedantic points, then I'll address your main question.

"fusion event caused humans to... turn into humans!"

Except in the sense that it *may* have helped the speciation event the fusion event did not turn anything into anything. You seem to know a lot more about the subject than most people I debate, so I'm sure you know that modern evolutionary theory does not consider anything but the most drastic molecular change to be the creation of a new species.

cont...