I said, “It’s been a while since I’ve come across this video, and I still can’t believe how ridiculous it is. First of all, the fly is NOT an example of macro-evolution. The fly is still of the same kind, making this micro-evolution, something with which I have no problem with. Secondly, the knowledge of how to study diseases comes not from our understanding of the fly’s “evolution”, but of its genetics. Genetic similarity is evidence of a common designer knowing that we would fall into sin, and ultimately disease. Since there are similar creatures, God has given us the ability to take one step closer to curing these diseases. Thirdly, what does the stair vs tree illustration have to do with anything regarding micro/macro-evolution? I’m sorry, but I didn’t seem to catch it. Fourthly, you never showed an example of how one kind becomes two due to not being able to bring forth offspring. Fifthly, the iguana is still the same kind of animal, making this yet another case of micro-evolution, not macro-evolution. Sixth, the lizard is still the same kind of animal, making this another clear example of micro-evolution, not macro-evolution. Lastly, the fish is still the same kind of fish, making this another clear example of micro-evolution, not macro-evolution. Has evolution been observed? Micro-evolution has been, but not macro-evolution. Fail :-)”
He replied, ““The fly is still of the same kind” Define “kind.” “Genetic similarity is evidence of a common designer” Then why does it follow a nested hierarchy and not a design pattern? “Fourthly, you never showed an example of how one kind becomes two due to not being able to bring forth offspring.” Ring species show this quite well. “Fifthly, the iguana is still the same kind of animal” It made a whole new body part, something creationists say is impossible. “Lastly, the fish is still the same kind of fish” Again, define “kind.” “Micro-evolution has been, but not macro-evolution. Fail” There is NO micro- or macro-evolution; there’s just evolution. The fail is YOURS. This creationist bleating about micro- vs. macro-evolution is like saying, “A micro-fall of two inches will do you no harm, but a macro-fall of 2 miles is supposed to kill you? How is that possible?””
I responded, “First of all, two animals are of the same kind if they can bring forth offspring. Secondly, by “nested hierarchy” do you mean a phylogeny? Thirdly, could you show me an example of ring species? Fourthly, Dr. David Menton said about the lizards, “The ‘new’ muscular valve they found between the small and large intestine is simply an enlargement of muscles already present in the gut wall at this juncture.” (Dr. David Menton, “Island Evolves Lizards” (AiG, 2009)). Lastly, your analogy is a strawman to discourage my correct use of the micro/macro distinction. Micro-evolution is variation within a kind, while macro-evolution is a change of kinds (which I clearly defined above). I agree with micro-evolution, but not macro-evolution. All you showed in your video are examples of micro-evolution.”
He then responded, ““First of all, two animals are of the same kind if they can bring forth offspring.” So, you mean “species.” But I gave examples of speciation and you STILL said they were the same kind! “Secondly, by “nested hierarchy” do you mean a phylogeny?” No, the nested hierarchy is evidence FOR phylogeny. A nested hierarchy is a distinct concept in Information Theory and means only one thing: the information comes from common sources. “Fourthly, Dr. David Menton” is a lying creationist like you. There IS NO SUCH VALVE IN THE ANCESTRAL POPULATION. “Lastly, your analogy is a strawman to discourage my correct use of the micro/macro distinction” No, the micro-macro distinction IS A CREATIONIST LIE. Plain and simple. There is no micro- or macro-evolution, there’s just evolution. In order for there to be a distinction, you need some kind of mechanism that prevents small changes from accumulating over time. What mechanism would that be? “All you showed in your video are examples of micro-evolution.” Except you JUST AGREED that if they can’t produce fertile offspring they’re different kinds! AND I SHOWED THAT!!! ALL CREATIONISTS ARE LIARS.”
I then replied, “First of all, you didn’t give one example where there has been a change in kinds. Evolutionists are in disagreement of what a species is. Since you have defined it for me as the same as a kind, I’ll go with your terminology if that means anything to you. Since evolutionists cannot agree on what a species is, it is very likely that the animals you referenced are different species under someone else’s definition. Thus, you need to prove that these are indeed different species - that they cannot bring forth with the parent species. Secondly, hierarchy is an evolutionary concept - a concept that assumes evolution to be true. IF macro-evolution were true, nested hierarchy would be quite useful, but you have not shown that to be the case. Since I accept micro-evolution, I would accept a sort of hierarchy that can only trace back from different sub-species to individual species when they were created by God 6,000 years ago. Thirdly, you just committed an ad hominem attack on Dr. David Menton without addressing what he said. And before you call me a liar, could you please re-read why he said? Lastly, you are assuming that unlimited change is normal, so there must be for me a mechanism to stop this unlimited change. You have not shown this to be the case. You have not yet proved that the mechanisms that we know cause micro-evolution can reach to macro-evolution in an unlimited way. Thus, you have not yet demonstrably shown that unlimited change is natural since you haven’t shown unlimited change (i.e. macro-evolution). By the way, could you just google “micro-evolution” and see if any evolutionists use that term? Anyways, you still have not shown ANY scientific evidence for macro-evolution. When are you going to show me some? I already defined what a kind is for you.”
He then replied, ““First of all, you didn’t give one example where there has been a change in kinds.” Yes, I did: you said that if they can’t produce offspring with each other they’re different kinds. I showed that. “Evolutionists are in disagreement of what a species is.” LIE. A species is a population that can maintain long-term fertile offspring under natural conditions. “Since evolutionists cannot agree on what a species is” Since they CAN, everything that follows is another LIE. “Thus, you need to prove that these are indeed different species - that they cannot bring forth with the parent species.” No, the PARENT species has nothing to do with it. If the two populations that develop from the parent cannot have fertile offspring with each other, they’re different species. “hierarchy is an evolutionary concept - a concept that assumes evolution to be true.” Nope. You can EASILY tell using Information Theory if a data set is the result of a nested hierarchy. Independently of evolution, the information in our genome does PRECISELY THAT. “Thirdly, you just committed an ad hominem attack on Dr. David Menton without addressing what he said.” No, I pointed out that he LIED about the data. The ancestral population HAS NO SUCH BODY PART. DEAL with it. “And before you call me a liar, could you please re-read why he said?” Yes: he said the ancestral population had a similar body part. THEY DON’T. HE LIED. “By the way, could you just google “micro-evolution” and see if any evolutionists use that term?” They do, but not in the way you do. “Anyways, you still have not shown ANY scientific evidence for macro-evolution. When are you going to show me some? I already defined what a kind is for you.” You defined “kind” as a species. I showed speciation. This challenge HAS BEEN MET. DEAL with it.”
I then responded, “First of all, you did not show a specific example of a change in kind. You may want to reread this conversation. You haven’t given one specific example where one kind of animal had become another kind of animal. If you did, would you so kindly repeat it - with the exact creature? Secondly, check out www.macroevolution.net and look up the definition of “species”. I dare you. Thirdly, you have just changed your definition of species. At first you said it was the same as my definition of a kind, which was “two animals that can bring forth offspring.” Now you are redefining it to “two animals that can bring forth FERTILE offspring”. Until you go back to your first definition of species, I will use the word “kind” again. Lastly, if evolution doesn’t inform hierarchy, could you them show me how it works? Once again, you have given absolutely no scientific evidence for macro-evolution.”
He then replied, ““First of all, you did not show a specific example of a change in kind.” Yes, I did. I showed populations that could no longer reproduce with each other, and I even showed an example of a transitional species in the process of speciating. And we’re not playing the old “repeat it” canard of all lying creationists. It’s a dishonest rhetorical play, nothing more. They’re mentioned in the video and EVERYONE can see it. And why should I care what a pseudoscience site has to say about “macroevolution”? I don’t care about that any more than I care what an anti-vaccination site has to say about toxins. “Thirdly, you have just changed your definition of species.” Nope, never did. “Now you are redefining it to “two animals that can bring forth FERTILE offspring”” It has ALWAYS been that, LIAR. “Lastly, if evolution doesn’t inform hierarchy,” I never said that. I said the nested hierarchy is incredibly strong evidence for common descent. “Once again, you have given absolutely no scientific evidence for macro-evolution.” Only because you’re another creationist LIAR who’d rather stick his head in the sand and cling to his Bronze Age delusion than learn the truth.”
I then responded, “First of all, you are right. Everyone can see the conversation and how you did not present ANY scientific evidence for macro-evolution. So I guess that debate is over. Secondly, the website is PRO-EVOLUTION! But of course, since you don’t care to look into the evidence, you will continue to deny that evolutionists are in disagreement with what a species is. Wanna try again, and go to the website? Thirdly, you said, “‘two animals are of the same kind if they can bring forth offspring.’ So you mean ‘species’” You agreed with that definition that does not include that the offspring must be fertile. So in reality, you are the liar, not me. Lastly, could you explain to me how nested hierarchy proves macro-evolution? Once again, you have shown no scientific evidence for macro-evolution and are now refusing to give me evidence. All of that for everyone to see.”
He then replied, ““Secondly, the website is PRO-EVOLUTION!” The website is PSEUDOSCIENCE! They’re working with a definition of evolution that NO biologist accepts and trying to make out how they’re upending the scientific establishment. NO, THEY AREN’T. But thank you for exposing your cultist thinking: you think of this as being your side versus my side, creationists vs. evolutionists. And so all us “evolutionists” must be on the same side and must agree with each other. (censored). If there are any sides, it’s liars vs. the truth, and you and that site are both on the side of the LIARS. “Lastly, could you explain to me how nested hierarchy proves macro-evolution?” The only way you can have a nested hierarchy is with common descent. Our genetics CLEARLY shows a nested hierarchy with all other life forms.”
I then responded, “First of all, you may view them as pseudoscientific (as do I), but you cannot deny that they are still evolutionists. They believe in macro-evolution. Secondly, calling me a liar without addressing tons of my objections isn’t really the logical way to settle a debate. It’s just another ad hominem attack. But it’s your way, apparently, so you aren’t being very logical, and in fact are committing a logical fallacy. Lastly, exactly how does genetics prove evolution? I challenge you to visit this website and take the survey: http://oddinterviews.com/good-person-test/ . I dare you.”
He then replied, ““but you cannot deny that they are still evolutionists. They believe in macro-evolution.” They do NOT believe in evolution as described by actual scientists. “Secondly, calling me a liar without addressing tons of my objections” I addressed EVERY SINGLE ONE of your objections, LIAR. “It’s just another ad hominem attack.” Another LIE. I haven’t made ONE SINGLE ad hominem attack. You, on the other hand, have made several. “Lastly, exactly how does genetics prove evolution?” Asked and answered, LIAR,.”
I finally responded, “Alright, Shane. I don’t need to answer any more objections as I have already done so. It will be the audience who sees who is actually acting logically and who is acting like an insecure shouter. And may God save you.”
Of course, Shane had the last word, ““I don’t need to answer any more objections as I have already done so.” You’ve answered NOTHING. ALL of the points still stand. Speciation HAS BEEN OBSERVED. The nested hierarchy IS REAL. NONE of your bloviating will EVER change that.”
So what do you think? Was I lying, or was he unable to produce scientific evidence for macro-evolution? Leave your comments on his video, and get ready for a four letter word to get thrown at you for no reason: liar.
Here’s a link to some pictures of the conversation in case he takes them down: Shane Killian VS Joshua Alvarez on YouTube
No comments:
Post a Comment