I don't understand what you're trying to say here. The theory of evolution implies a common ancestor, which is necessary for the pattern of nested hierarchy of life, which is a universal observation.

I suspect much of the disagreement we have with DBM has less to do with any silly preconceptions, and more to do with just plain disorganized, fuzzy thinking. His ideas are always hazy, his antecedents unclear, his thought processes erratic and often incoherent. When we can finally pin down exacty what he has in mind (if anything), there doesn't seem to be any disagreement left. But he must be led step by step through the thinking process first.

__________________
I don't need to tell myself my morals are superior; it's obvious.
--Sibboleth

I'm trying to make a distinction between the theory and the process, which DBM fails to do.

I suspect he is a troll and his ideas hasn't changed since I first started debating him last summer.

__________________
"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for a reward, we are a sorry lot indeed." -Albert Einstein

"The world and the universe is an extremely beautiful place, and the more we understand about it the more beautiful does it appear." - Richard Dawkins

I'm not quite sure I understand this distinction. The theory of evolution is a proposed explanation of the mechanisms driving biological change - an explanation of how it works. This is basically a process. And if the process works the way theory says, there must be a common ancestor.

You may be right. He is extremely inarticulate, so it's hard to know if he has any ideas at all. But also, we should understand that many ideas about evolution are pretty much unrelated to anything to do with science or evidence or research or such; they derive from some non-evidence-based source like early indoctrination or misplaced pride. And it's a truism that conclusions not based on evidence cannot be changed by evidence. To see the light requires the equivalent of a religious conversion, and such conversions are driven by emotion and trust, not facts.

__________________
I don't need to tell myself my morals are superior; it's obvious.
--Sibboleth

The process that is evolution works regardless of a common ancestor but not regardless of common ancestry. It may seem subtle but there's a rather important distinction (especially in the context of creationist misconception).

We have no reason to assume that evolution fails to work with lifeforms beyond the only lifeform we know and for which all known evidence does indeed point towards a common ancestor. If diversity of other lifeforms are based on evolutionary processes and if you predicate the theory upon a common ancestor, then the theory fails if the lifeform we're part of does not have a common ancestor with other lifeforms. The theory only predicts common ancestry, not a common ancestor for all life.

He's not particularly lucid. You just think so because you and he share the same misconceptions!

This has the philosophical problem of eliminating the usefulness of the term "god." It's an example of the misconceptions I'm talking about.

__________________
I used to be indecisive. Now I'm not so sure. People tell me I'm argumentative, but I beg to differ. All I know is it's bad luck to be superstitious.

Bingo. Even if the common ancestor part of the theory of evolution was shown to be wrong, that doesn't effect the process of evolution nor the rest of the theory that explains the process.

__________________
"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for a reward, we are a sorry lot indeed." -Albert Einstein

"The world and the universe is an extremely beautiful place, and the more we understand about it the more beautiful does it appear." - Richard Dawkins

Ah, it's the old "you haven't found the Missing Link" argument.

In fact science has found the fossils of many "missing links" -- humanoid primates from which Homo sapiens could have descended. It is impossible to find the ONE "missing link," a creature that is intermediate between man and the apes, because man did not descend in a linear fashion from apes; man descended from pre-human ancestors, and at some point man and the apes had a common ancestor. Also it is impossible to find fossils of EVERY intermediary step between this ancestor and modern man, but this is what creationists appear to demand as proof of evolution.

Hume said that the more incredible a claim is, the greater the amount of evidence needed to prove it. Creationists say the evidence is insufficient to prove evolution theory, but expect us to believe on the basis of no concrete evidence at all that a supernatural being made the universe and everything in it.

__________________
"There is no commodity so rare as truth, and yet the supply always exceeds the demand." -- Ambrose Bierce

You read well , i already said that Frogger's view inspired me and i share his ideas...

your misconception about what you were taught is God brings you to nebulous meanderings of nothingness on the subject matter....lol...it is funny actually...your inteligent yet by the fact you just dismissed my philosophy in order to justify your misconceptions of God only show though inteligent your misguided...

not really your fault ...your not really special or anything just grasping at one of the many misconceptions one can have in this miopic world...Your not alone , you've chosen an equation and made it your life...you did not come to this conclusion on your own , nor are you inspired.



you think cause you take the side of the atheist it causes you to be some sort of scientits...but your not really are you...well studied , well googled, but lost in misconcieved ideas that you claim is religion and the right concept of God.

YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND GOD FOR YOU HAVE ONLY THE MEANDERINGS OF THE UNENLIGHTENED TO BASE YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF GOD ON

Talk about arrogance. You disagree so Doc Dred and I are sharing the same misconceptions. What's next? You going to call us delusional?

You exhibit the one trait most distasteful among atheists, unmitigated arrogance.

Both Doc Dred and I are just as capable as you or Flint or any of the other atheists at Political Forum of observing things and coming to conclusions based on those observations. Despite what you seem to think, atheists have not cornered the market on brains or intelligence.

__________________
Vox clamanto in deserto.

“There is no social entity with a good that undergoes some sacrifice for its own good. There are only individual people, different individual people, with their own individual lives. Using one of these people for the benefit of others, uses him and benefits the others. Nothing more.” Robert Nozick

I understand where you are coming from Flintc. I do. I just didn’t know if you understood where he and Frogger were coming from is all…

I concur.

Darwin is kinda outdated don’t you think? From what the people on your side have said repeatedly – Darwin doesn’t matter anymore. I read the book. It’s a big book! It’s been a while. I know (like when I read the Bible) the parts that stuck. Can I recall everything from either? Nope… I doubt (if you read it) you could either. So, either you have a vast memory, just read the book, or is a liar.

I don’t have time to entertain you. But, if you are so serious on wondering – you can look up when schools started (around the world) teaching evolution. Here are a couple off my head that are not Euro-Anglo-white that you might want to look up… Japan, China, Brazil, Peru, India (I think they just got books a couple years ago) and the list goes on… So, if you took the time to look up schools and evolution outside the white world – you might see something a little different. Along with those whites who believe in God play a larger part – some being scientist.

Your joking right? Ummm – you said it yourself earlier. Dealing with DNA on a molecular level. Darwin was unable to do this in his time.
I think your just playing now… You’re trailing off and not really posting anything anymore.

Blah blah blah…

Look up schools from non Euro-white countries. Ones that have heavy religious populous. Countries in Africa that are not influenced by the Queen. What books have they done on evolution? What courses do they have (like the US) that deals only with Evolution Biology in colleges? There are some (influenced by Euro-Anglo-Whites) but not many.

Your assumptions and games you play is ridiculous. 98% of this planet believes in a form of a God, including many scientist. To just “ASSUME” that they do not debate over this topic still – is ridiculous. Yes, the majority of Anglo-White scientist from Northern Europe and America are for Evolution, but once you get to Spain, things change… You could be knowledged about evolution – maybe – but your not knowledged on the world and evolution. There are many questions that are unanswered and NO – evolution did not pass the Sceintific Method. Please tell me how they tested the hypothesis of this common ancestor What was the experimentation done on this common ancestor?