Place for Creationists to post their "reasonable tests" for their position

[YoursTrue]

Let's stick to 21st century knowledge, for starters.
Today, common ancestry of species is a genetic fact.

You can argue with this till the cows come home, but it is what it is. Phylogenetics demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that species in fact do share ancestry. It's pretty much as close to fact as you can get on that point. That, plus the fact, off course, that we have literally observed speciation events.

Evolution theory deals with the process of evolution. It's an explanatory model that attempts (very succesfully) at explaining the facts of biology. One of the facts it explains, is the genetic fact that species share ancestry.



"morphed" is also one of those words that only sows confusion and which isn't accurate.
To "morph" is something that an individual does. In evolution, that's not how it works. Creatures die as the same species that they were born. Neither do members of species X give birth to a member of species Y. It's a gradual process which works through the accumulation of micro-changes over generations.

As the saying goes: lot's of small fish, make up for a big whale.



In layman's terms, I'ld say something like this:

Evolution is the process of accumulation of micro-changes in a population, through genetic inheritance and filtered by a selection process, eventually leading to speciation events.


This simple statement can explain the entire tree of life, and the nested hierarchy it comes in.
It can also explain the fossil record, comparative anatomy, comparative genomics, geographic distribution of species, etc.

It has gigantic explanatory power.

Let's figure the Tiktaalik. What micro changes were evident?

 

[YoursTrue]

The evidence that the mosquito presents is germane to common descent.


Sometimes an analogy can help. The theory of evolution is similar to a map of the world. This map has only a few minor errors that are easily corrected when compared to the real world. One can test it to see if the streets of lists match reality. Meanwhile the creation myth is similar to presenting the Earth as being flat with the Status of Liberty listed as being in a cornfield in Iowa and Moscow as a suburb of Paris.

You can test that map by going to a random city and seeing how accurate it is. The theory of evolution is tested by seeing if random species fit into it.

Let me go over this again. Before I make a statement, does anyone really know what was the first organism? Do they know if one organism appeared with first life, bacteria perhaps, and kept evolving (ok, not morphing) to become something more than the first organism? By that I mean was the evolving organism to become a plant or animal? I ask that because it appears the idea is that from one or several unicellular organisms eventually came plants and animals, is that right?

 

[YoursTrue]

Let's stick to 21st century knowledge, for starters.
Today, common ancestry of species is a genetic fact.

You can argue with this till the cows come home, but it is what it is. Phylogenetics demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that species in fact do share ancestry. It's pretty much as close to fact as you can get on that point. That, plus the fact, off course, that we have literally observed speciation events.

Evolution theory deals with the process of evolution. It's an explanatory model that attempts (very succesfully) at explaining the facts of biology. One of the facts it explains, is the genetic fact that species share ancestry.



"morphed" is also one of those words that only sows confusion and which isn't accurate.
To "morph" is something that an individual does. In evolution, that's not how it works. Creatures die as the same species that they were born. Neither do members of species X give birth to a member of species Y. It's a gradual process which works through the accumulation of micro-changes over generations.

As the saying goes: lot's of small fish, make up for a big whale.



In layman's terms, I'ld say something like this:

Evolution is the process of accumulation of micro-changes in a population, through genetic inheritance and filtered by a selection process, eventually leading to speciation events.


This simple statement can explain the entire tree of life, and the nested hierarchy it comes in.
It can also explain the fossil record, comparative anatomy, comparative genomics, geographic distribution of species, etc.

It has gigantic explanatory power.

OK, how many genes were in the first living organism, called a unicell, if I remember correctly?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It has been claimed by a creationist that there are "reasonable tests" for his creationist beliefs. In fact, this creationist claimed, when initially asked to present those tests, that his are "Far more reasonable tests than what you have" for, I suppose, the other person's non-creationist beliefs.

This was followed by several requests for the creationist to present those far more reasonable tests, which went un-answered. The creationist finally explained that he did not want to derail the other thread, so the fellow asking him about his 'reasonable tests' should "open another thread."

So, here it is.

Please show us your tests for your position, and demonstrate that they are "far more reasonable" than those of 'tests' to the contrary.

Thanks!

Wow! This has been up close to three weeks. There must be dozens, perhaps 100's of tests by creationists on this thread. I can't wait to read them.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It has been claimed by a creationist that there are "reasonable tests" for his creationist beliefs. In fact, this creationist claimed, when initially asked to present those tests, that his are "Far more reasonable tests than what you have" for, I suppose, the other person's non-creationist beliefs.

This was followed by several requests for the creationist to present those far more reasonable tests, which went un-answered. The creationist finally explained that he did not want to derail the other thread, so the fellow asking him about his 'reasonable tests' should "open another thread."

So, here it is.

Please show us your tests for your position, and demonstrate that they are "far more reasonable" than those of 'tests' to the contrary.

Thanks!

I was looking through the thread and you know, I didn't see one test, neither credible or laughable from the creationists. What happened?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Let's figure the Tiktaalik. What micro changes were evident?

I don't understand your question.

Care to clarify?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

OK, how many genes were in the first living organism, called a unicell, if I remember correctly?

I don't know and it's not relevant to topic.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Let me go over this again. Before I make a statement, does anyone really know what was the first organism? Do they know if one organism appeared with first life, bacteria perhaps, and kept evolving (ok, not morphing) to become something more than the first organism? By that I mean was the evolving organism to become a plant or animal? I ask that because it appears the idea is that from one or several unicellular organisms eventually came plants and animals, is that right?

Species share ancestors.
What first life was and what it looked like, isn't actually that relevant to the process of evolution.
It's rather relevant to the field of abiogenesis, which is an entirely different field altogether.

Why do you ask?

 

[Polymath257]

Let me go over this again. Before I make a statement, does anyone really know what was the first organism? Do they know if one organism appeared with first life, bacteria perhaps, and kept evolving (ok, not morphing) to become something more than the first organism? By that I mean was the evolving organism to become a plant or animal? I ask that because it appears the idea is that from one or several unicellular organisms eventually came plants and animals, is that right?

There is a separation of billions of years between the first living thing (probably a bacterium) and plants and animals.

Also, the first plants and animals were single-celled. There are such alive today. And yes, both animals and plants are descended from that first living bacterium.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is a separation of billions of years between the first living thing (probably a bacterium) and plants and animals.

Also, the first plants and animals were single-celled. There are such alive today. And yes, both animals and plants are descended from that first living bacterium.

Though technically neither are plants nor animals. Biologically both plants and animals are multicellular. In fact multicellularity seems to have evolved multiple times:

https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.earth.031208.100209

 

[Audie]

Let me go over this again. Before I make a statement, does anyone really know what was the first organism? Do they know if one organism appeared with first life, bacteria perhaps, and kept evolving (ok, not morphing) to become something more than the first organism? By that I mean was the evolving organism to become a plant or animal? I ask that because it appears the idea is that from one or several unicellular organisms eventually came plants and animals, is that right?

The first living thing would not have been any
sort of cell.
There is no bright line distinction between life
and non life.
Nobody can define life, though we can list
some characteristics.

You do not, of course, understand why I said that.