Originally posted by twhitehead
That is not the case with me. In fact I have many times tried to discourage you from posting long winded quotes from people simply because they had nice credentials to their name. If anything I would say you are more of a credentialist than I am.
[b]The big picture is grasped by me ...
No, it clearly isn't.
The third thing I have noticed is ...[text shortened]... nesis never took place? In what way do you feel the origin of life is a 'problem to the theory'?
That is not the case with me. In fact I have many times tried to discourage you from posting long winded quotes from people simply because they had nice credentials to their name. If anything I would say you are more of a credentialist than I am.
I have posted some interesting quotations not merely because they had nice credentials but because the observations were significant.
Their backrounds just save some people time from going to find out who so-and-so is. And it is a good id to give a source for a quote on the forum.
The big picture is grasped by me ...
No, it clearly isn't.
The overall scheme grasped by me but not believed.
I don't believe in your "no goal" and "no knowing" program.
I believe that you can argue forever. That I believe, that you have exhaustless rationales to make this evolution belief plausible sounding.
The third thing I have noticed is that evolutionists evade the origin of life as if that is not a problem to the theory. "Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life" is an excuse that I have grown tired of. You cannot dismiss the origin problem to some other discipline if evolution at large took place.
Which discipline do you believe it is being dismissed from?
What is your actual claim here? That evolution could be disproved if abiogenesis never took place? In what way do you feel the origin of life is a 'problem to the theory'?
Why shouldn't the theory explain the origin of all life ?
That is unless the problem is too hard that it is punted off to someone else.
This is the "Get em talking and talking until you can pounce on some little inconsistency game."
"Explain what you mean. And explain what that means. And explain what that means. " So you hunt for some inconsistency to pounce on and "prove" that you know more about evolution which no one in the right mind should question.
I don't think you yourself understood the paste you put up exhaustively.
Tell me which elements of the paragraph you did not understand.
Or were there none?
The cells around this structure express genes homologous to NKX2.5/tinman, and gradual specialization of this "gastroderm" results in the appearance of mesoderm in the phylum Bilateria, which will produce the first primitive cardiac myocytes.
Explain this in your own words now if you fully grasp it.
The appearance of Chordata and subsequently the vertebrates is accompanied by a rapid structural diversification of this primitive linear heart: looping, unidirectional circulation, an enclosed vasculature, and the conduction system.
How rapid in terms of years between diverse structures ?
Why should it have been "rapid". What's the hurry?
There is no knowledge and no goal in evolution.