Evolutionary idiocy (More or less standard dogma)?

Hi, Chemscience. Welcome to EvC! Everybody else has concentrated on the first two assumptions, which deal with abiogenesis, and explained how the Theory of Evolution does not hinge on these. I would like to add that none of the other five are assumptions that the Theory of Evolution relies upon, either.There are two different models of which you need to be aware: (1) Evolution by Natural Selection (“animals change in a heritable fashion over time, in a process regulated by environmental conditions”)---this I will henceforth abbreviate “ToE,” for convenience; and (2) Natural History (“the retelling of how evolution has played out in the past”). If you think about it, these two models are not at all the same. Note that “natural history” is not, itself, a theory, but is simply a field of study that pieces together how evolution happened in the past. Our understanding of natural history can change a thousand times over without once causing a problem for ToE.For example:“Assumption” #3 in your citation states, “viruses, bacteria, plants and animals are all interrelated.” Natural history states that this is true. But, if viruses arose separately from the primordial soup, evolution would still be happening. So, the ToE does not require assumption #3, nor does it actually assume assumption #3 at all. In fact, that all organisms are related is actually a conclusion, based on applying the ToE to the data that has been collected.“Assumption” #4 in your citation states, “Protozoa gave rise to Metazoa.” Again, notice my parenthetical explanation for the ToE model. What part of, “animals change in a heritable fashion over time, in a process regulated by environmental conditions” hinges on the Metazoa arising from the Protozoa? Only current understanding of natural history posit this. The mechanism proposed by ToE still functions just the same in a scenario where the Metazoa did not evolve from the Protozoa.I could continue down the list and show how each of the other “assumptions” is neither required nor assumed by ToE, but is only important to the concept of Natural History. So, when you, or any other creationist, argues against evolution, you should learn to distinguish our current understanding of the world’s history from our current understanding of the mechanisms that have been working throughout that history, because the ToE is really only one of those two things, and it isn’t the one that contradicts Genesis.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Hi, Chemscience.I've been trying to follow this thread, but it seems that there are too many different sub-topics blooming out of your last couple of messages. Anytime you write, in a single message, a whole list of things that, in your mind, discredit the Theory of Evolution, you're going to get a whole lot of scientists and science buffs whose "pet topics" have been offended, and the thread will spin violently into a gnarled mess of topics.In fact, in relation to the Evolution vs. Creation debate, evolutionists have invented a title for this style of argumentation. It's called the "Gish Gallup," named after an intelligent design proponent who debates by ignoring rebuttals and repeatedly bringing up new points, that his opponent then feels obligated to answer. This way, he has total control over the discussion, keeps his opponents on the defensive, and never once has to support his own position, and this gives the impression that his opponent's argument is actually much weaker than it really is.So, before this thread gets caught up in that, may I suggest that you decide which of the many points you've brought up you'd like to discuss here? You can talk about animal migrations and circadian rhythms, australopithecines and Sivapithecus, mathematical improbabilities, or whatever else. Some of these would make interesting separate threads in their own right, too. But, whatever you choose, try to stick to arguments on a narrow topic, but it helps keep the discussion under control and meaningful.-----As a side note, you discussed the Cambrian Explosion in one of your posts. I recently started a thread (Explanations for the Cambrian Explosion) that, unfortunately, didn't really get off the ground due to the lack of creationist activity on the thread. This is a topic that I am deeply interested, but not particularly expert, in, so I would love to see your contributions there if you're interested.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.