A Guide to the tactics of Evolutionists

Did I say hermaphroditism means, by definition, a creature that mates with itself? The mate with itself was one scenario for you guys to imagine a path for evolving, suggesting that perhaps an organism split into 2 and thus after it split, it mated "with itself", but admittedly that is far-fetched.I'll admit that I didn't do an in-depth analysis, but maybe if you can explain your ideas about how a hermaphrodite or hermaphrodites emerged and led to sole males and females, we can discuss it.... Of course, it is still imagination.Why would, for example, a creature succesfully duplicating itself evolve male and female identities? What's the selective advantage of being male and female, as oppossed to not? Seems it is limiting and a disadvantage at that point.Of course, natural selection never added a whit to macro-evolution, but for sake of argument, an individual organism that is male or female rather than asexual or hermaphrodite, is more limited in it's ability to mate. It must find another of the opposite sex, not just another.....I really can't see any selective advantage at all.Maybe you can though?Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Why would a hermaphrodite population emerge in the first place, WK?What's the advantage? You pointed to a disadvantage of a hermaphrodite population, but not to how hermaphroditism is an advantage over other means of reproduction.Also, isn't the removal of one sex from an organism likely acheived via a reduction in genetic diversity that accounted for the sex that was removed?Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Maybe this would be a suitable topic for a thread of its own rather than distracting this one from discussing evolutionist debabting tactics. I'd certainly be happy to go into more detail on proposed origins of sexual reproduction and sexes.TTFN,WK

And yet some animals reproduce, and some animals die without reproducing. And yet pleasure and pain have a physical basis. This is just rubbish. First of all, you must surely be aware that Darwinians are not of one mind on morality, nor on the question of whether there is a spiritual realm.Secondly, if I say that by 'giraffe' I do not mean 'pink elephant', and if I say that there are no pink elephants, this does not mean that this "leaves giraffes as de facto pink elephants".---The OP was entitled "A Guide To The Bait & Switch Tactics Of Evolutionists", not "A Guide To The Strawman Tactics Of Creationists". Otherwise, your post would have been pertinent.

You will notice that "evolution" and "macroevolution" are two different words, not the same word given two different meanings. Hello?It is true that observing evolution in the small scale tends to confirm the possibility of it happening on a larger scale, in that the opposite observation would deconfirm that possibility.However, the proof of macroevolution lies mainly in genetics, the fossil record, bigeography, morphology, et cetera. No evolutionist claims that the existence of heritable change alone proves macroevolution, and I should think that every member of this forum knows this. What is your objective in pretending otherwise? Recapitulation is a myth and you should know perfectly well that real scientists say so. I know of no living scientist who claims that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny: if you maintain that they do, perhaps you could name just one. Neanderthals have always been classed as Homo. Scientists agree that Haeckel's drawings are fraudulent, and you know it. It was scientists, not creationists, who exposed the fraud. There was no fraud whatsoever in the peppered moth experiments and to pretend there was is dishonest and libellous. I have no idea what you're talking about. Scientists don't make Neanderthal skulls, they excavate them. You should find out what the theory of evolution is before criticizing it. Natural selection does indeed reduce the diversity of the gene pool. No-one has ever claimed otherwise. This is a flat falsehood, which is why you can produce no evidence for it. The fossil record contains many intermediate forms.---Again, could I point out that the thread is meant to be about "bait and switch tactics of evolutionists" not "creationist falsehoods and straw men".Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

No. You said that evolutionists would suggest a creature that mates with itself as the origin of sex. Instead, we pointed to hermaphroditism, then you claimed to have predicted it. I agree with Wounded King, that it would be better to start a separate thread for this. I'll note that Archer Opterix has proposed such a thread at The Birth of Sex. That could be promoted to Showcase, in which case Archer Opterix would be unable to participate. Or it might be better for you to start a similar thread here, and the existing PNT could be promoted to a parallel thread for other evolutionists to discuss.I'll postpone other comments on your message until there is a more appropriate thread available.

---

Just say no to McCain 2008; he abandoned principle when he caved on habeus corpus

Such a thread would be interesting. What hasn't been addressed so far on this is how the first and simplest living organism might have survived to propigate itself into something continuous so far as abiogenesis goes. Logically the odds of survival would seem to be impossible void of enough sudden complexity to effect survival and abiogenesis of any organism.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

Saying that something is "logical" doesn't magically make it so: it is also necessary to produce a chain of logical reasoning from premises known to be true. I notice that you've omitted this step.BTW, do you know what happens when you mix Q replicase with amino acids without an RNA template? Here.This is not, I will wager, how life on Earth began, but it seems to me that it is abiogenesis: you mix together chemicals which aren't alive, and get RNA strands which reproduce and evolve.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

That's technically true that they may believe in another good, but in reality it works like I say it does. Propose the material good of survival, then deny that it is moral, then proceed to violently destroy any knowledge of spiritual good as being unscientific pink elephants, leaving the material good of survival as the defacto morality by elimination of all others goods.regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

DA, I see intelligent design in your argument which is not spontaneous at al but ID folks at work doing things with stuff that is in place to work with and mix, et al.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

Yeah? Who "designs" the RNA strands?Oh look, no-one. They form spontaneously from the chemicals and then evolve by themselves.You'd get the same result from an accident in a laboratory.In fact, IIRC, the first time this happened, Eigen and his team were running it as a control experiment to prove that it wouldn't happen. Where's the "Intelligent Design"?---And, of course, you don't need intelligence to mix chemicals together, this happens in nature all the time.If you keep on heading down that route, you'll reach the reductio ad absurdum of claiming that no experiment can ever prove anything about abiogenesis.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Er, no, in practice, it doesn't.This is your bait and switch --- you start off talking about the theory of evolution, and end up proclaiming that it means the exact opposite of what every evolutionist says it does. "Propose the giraffe, then deny that it is a pink elephant, then procede to violently destroy any knowledge of pink elephants, leaving the giraffe as the de facto pink elephant by elimination of all other pink elephants."This is rubbish. It's not merely untrue, it's complete blithering nonsense.

In reality Darwinists face identity-issues for themselves, conceiving of themselves as being at base organisms in a struggle for survival, in the context of natural selection. That they might conjure up something else besides that base is neither here nor there, the results are all properly classed as evolutionary moralities because of the basis. Even if for instance their belief is about going against selfish genes, then that is still an evolutionary morality about selfish genes.regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

This would be humorous if not so tragic for the scientific community. Look at your post and notice that you use the term "evolution" in the second sentence, and then refer to "evolution" as "it" in the same sentence in a direct reference to macroevolution. Despite having the false logic pointed out to you and you making the comment that "evolution" and "macroevolution" are 2 different words, you still nonetheless go straight ahead with the same bait and switch tactic.Keep in mind observing changes or speciation is not observing macroevolution, period. In fact, the process you observe works against macroevolution by limiting genetic diversity, and evos have never shown any empirical evidence to substantiate how a process working in direct contradiction to organic macroevolution can lead to organic macroevolution. Really? Maybe you need to let your fellow evos here know that as they argued with me ad infinitum that it was an acceptable term and theory, even though the Haeckel version was discredited. You should let the folks know at TalkOrigins know too.I don't have a lot of time to look up stuff today, but the term "recapitulate" and recapitulation is still in use by evos, as well as the Biogenetic law.Just a moment... Um, exactly who do you think first exposed, later exposed, etc,....Haeckel's drawings? Prior to the Richardson study in 1997, there were decades of creationists that exposed the drawings as faked, and of course, they were originally exposed as fakes in the 1800s. Moreover, you have a false dichotomy as if men like Von Baer and other critics of evolutionary theory were not and are not scientist.Let me ask you this. Why did it take the evo community 130 years to quit perpetuating a fraud on the public?You are pretty much doing the same thing most evos do. You ignore the fallacies of the peppered-moth story, ignore the false depictions of Neanderthals as sub-human, ignore the fact evos kept using faked data for 130 years, ignore the fact that we have hard evidence that the recreation of Neanderthal skulls has been distorted (failing to realize that evos don't just escavate skulls, but put them together often adding missing materials to the models), etc, etc....you display an avalanche of errors here. Look at this comment: Maybe I didn't spell it out. Macroevolution necessitates an increase in diversity, and so processes that work in the opposite direction work against macroevolution, it would seem. Maybe you are the one here needing to learn what evolutionary theory is, not me? You yourself tried to claim microevolution was macroevolution writ small in the same post. How can you then claim my statement is a flat out lie?You also display the common error of evos that the reason people disagree with it is because they do not understand it whereas it is usually the opposite situation; the evos don't understand the criticism of evolutionary theory. So you say, but under evo definitions, all fossils are intermediate forms automatically. The question is why doesn't the fossil record show gradualistic evolution. The fossil record contradicts the theories of evos because the gradual transitions are just not seen.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Read what I wrote again, then apologise. Oh, yes, speciation isn't macroevolution any more ... according to 50% of creationists ... the 50% who admit that it happens ... Saying this won't make it so. This is because we make no such claim. Your link points out that Haeckel was wrong, did you notice? Scientists. It didn't. So, same old allegations, no proof of fraud. No. The second sentence was false. Hello?I did not say "lie"; because I am doing you the credit of supposing that you're merely ignorant. But not all of the are intermediate forms between classes, et cetera. The evidence in the fossil record is entirely consistent with that hypothesis. The fossil record confirms the theory of evolution because it is replete with intermediate forms between groups of organisms.