Summations Only

You're a hoot."Genetic variations in a bacteria population" + "natural selection" = evolution.Duh.

Logic fail. Such a negative cannot be proved. However, the previous posts have established beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt that the did not believe or say that. You made the initial positive and provable claim; either provide more evidence or address the evidence we've posted.

You didn't ask for proof that it's a lie. You asked for proof that he never said that. The former can be proved, the latter cannot. Basic logic. Message 151Someone else addressed the question but I can't find it now. Some moderator posted a message to you linking to both my and the other replies.Bounore did not say that. Saying he did is a lie.Jean Rostand did say something close to that, but not exactly that. Quoting him as saying that is a lie. He also said "Transformism may be considered as accepted, and no scientist, no philosopher, no longer discusses the fact of evolution". As previously discussed and ignored by you, he obviously accepted that evolution occurs, but also thought that the theory of how this happened was incomplete at that time. That opinion is now way out of date.

I wonder why a creationist who believes in thousands of original ancestors cannot conceive of evolution from more than one original ancestor.The theory of evolution does not require one common ancestor; there could be more. The best evidence we have indicates one, but things do get pretty blurry that far back. But when you get right down to it...

Well, when you have some analysis demonstrating how it would fit with all current observations of mutations and some evidence of it actually happening, we can talk.Personally I think the Invisible Pink Unicorn (blessed be she!) arranges each mutation individually according to Her Plan, unfathomable by mortals. Prove me wrong.

[citation required]

Terminology is trumped by reality.T'was evolution no matter what you label it.

Kerkut was a zoologist and physiologist. Not automatically qualified to comment.1960 was long, long, long ago in science.The full text of his book is available at Full text of "Implications of evolution". It's really something. The introduction is reminiscent of Jack Chick's Big Daddy.He lists seven "assumptions", the first two of which are not premises of the ToE and the rest of which are conclusions from masses of evidence.

quote:

---

(1) The first assumption is that non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e. spontaneous generation occurred.

​

(2) The second assumption is that spontaneous generation occurred only once.

​

The other assumptions all follow from the second one.

​

(3) The third assumption is that viruses, bacteria, plants and animals are all interrelated.

​

(4) The fourth assumption is that the Protozoa gave rise to the Metazoa.

​

(5) The fifth assumption is that the various invertebrate phyla are interrelated.

​

(6) The sixth assumption is that the invertebrates gave rise to the vertebrates.

​

(7) The seventh assumption is that within the vertebrates the fish gave rise to the amphibia, the amphibia to the reptiles, and the reptiles to the birds and mammals. Sometimes this is expressed in other words, i.e. that the modern amphibia and reptiles had a common ancestral stock, and so on.

---

Bog-standard creationist BS. Not a reliable source.

[citation required]And his other five "assumptions"?

OK.None of those links and quotes say that abiogenesis or single ancestor are assumptions of the theory of evolution. The word "assumption" or any near synonym (premise, foundation, ...) does not appear except in your comment.Fail.This seems apropos to your feeble response: I see you have no response to my critique of his other five "assumptions". Pathetic.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

He was specifically offering those links as proof that the first two of Kerkut's seven "assumptions:

quote:

---

(1) The first assumption is that non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e. spontaneous generation occurred.
(2) The second assumption is that spontaneous generation occurred only once.

---

are indeed assumptions of the ToE. They don't support that cliam.

Yes, and as I pointed out your references did not address the issue. Entail: 1. Involve (something) as a necessary or inevitable part or consequence. NOT ABIOGENESIS since it starts with simple forms of life existing. Also no mention of abiogenesis being an assumption underlying the ToE. Yep, that's our conclusion from the evidence and the ToE.Do you even read what you write? You are trying to prove that common descent is a starting assumption of the ToE, not a conclusion. Quotes that do not address that question are irrelevant. Yes, an important event. No, not an assumption of the ToE. You're not even trying. How are you selecting these quotes? Something that is "suggested" is not assumed. Duh. Yep, another conclusion from the evidence based on the ToE. No mention of any assumptions underlying the ToE.I suggest you start looking for quotes that actually are relevant.Oh, and if you want to establish Kerkut as a valid authority, you're going to have to address all of his "assumptions" and more.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

See the logic error there?Of course not.

Conclusion, not assumption. Note how CRR is failing miserably at trying to establish that it's an assumption.

I read it as pointing our the colors and fonts and sizes distract from the fact that all he has is unsupported assertion. OK, I will.CRR: Show us the evidence and analysis.