Posted: Jul 25, 2010 9:15 pm
by stevebee92653
I was asked by theropod : “What evidence would it take to convince you that the ToE explains the biodiversity found throughout the biosphere.”

I answered:

How about for a start:
The vid on this thread has a great one, and one that has been avoided like the plague: That a bio-system that formed in a single species was capable of spreading to other species and how that took place. Or, did thousands of species all form all the same bio-system at about the same time? Not a plausible or possible scenario, of course. CA is not an answer but will be yours.
That natural selection was capable of inventing incredible bio-systems from a uni-celled earth. I know you evos don't like the notion of invention, but bio systems were inventions far more than any invention at the US Patent Office. There was no model or design or prior art for natural selection et al to go by. So how did that take place?
How did the designing and assembling of those systems take place in the species that the inventions formed in?
Being a dentist, this one has really bothered me: That mutations can form and transfer information to odontobasts, and ameloblasts so they will "know" when to turn on and turn off the knitting of enamel and dentin which will leave those incredible little sculptures that are our teeth. Since there are millions of odontoblasts and ameloblasts, each one must stop at a different point in time. Are NS and RM capable and powerful enough to originate and relay this information to the cells?
There are so many questions on my blog. Feel free to visit and challenge me.
I'm sure these questions will be made great light of by your amigos. That is the typical response. The difficulty for you is that five years ago I would have been arguing with you. Until this science crashed for me. Badly. So I know where you are coming from much more than you would think.

Your multiple responses: (a good sampling of all of the responses on this entire thread)
I hope you are reading this SteveBee, because you have an opportunity to impress the hell out of me and gain some respect here if you display a willingness to understand the fundamental concepts of evolution and how these function as the underlying mechanics for the evolution of novel features.
The way you ask your question demonstrates beyond any shadow of doubt that you have no fucking idea how evolution works. The question you ask here above betrays a vast and fundamental lack of understanding the basic concepts of evolutionary theory.
The crows are falling off of their roosts laughing at your shitty looking strawman.
Have you any evidence to back this bullshit claim up at all?
Are you honestly suggesting we aren't justified in learning from professionals who are better educated and actually qualified to teach relevant subject material?
If there is nothing we can do to convince you that the overwhelming evidence gathered over the past 300 years fully supports a naturalistic explanation for this biodiversity what is the point of continued conversation?
What is it about scientifically peer reviewed papers that scare you?
It's especially funny because, as pig-ignorant as that idea is, it also refutes the claim that he has been making all along here: If he thinks that it's possible for dogs and wolves to have separate ancestral origins, yet still be capable of interbreeding, then that is exactly the process that he claims must be possible for his bizarre version of evolution to occur.
Note: A continuing strawman. I don’t find anything compelling about dogs and wolves in proving evolution or not. Not big to me, but you keep harping on it like it is. If you are that hard up for evidence, you are hurtin’. And no I don’t know or care where Chihuahua’s came from.
Additionally, the more ignorant or dishonest they are, the less likely it is they even accept the possibility that they are wrong. Or will understand how or why they are wrong.

I gave the questions when asked, the answers are the same no matter what the question, and no matter who the responder is. So, adios. Thanks for the fun. I have better things to do with my time. Y'all are welcome over to my blog at any time if you want to try a different way of looking at this fascinating subject, try a little skepticism, or joust. You should change the name of this blog. Get rid of "skeptic" in the URL. There are none here. Or how about http://www.rationalreligionskepticism.org Because that is what you really are.
Over and out
Steve