The following must be assumed by evolutionists for evolution to make sense:
1) Spontaneous generation.
2) Spontaneous generation only happened once.
3) All living this must be related for evolution to be true.
4) Single cells evolved into multi cells.
5) Certain invertebrates are related.
6) Somehow, invertebrates evolved into vertebrates.
7) Within vertebrates: Fish gave rise to amphibians
Amphibians to Reptiles
Reptiles to Birds
Birds to mammals
Spontaneous Generation
As stereologist has pointed out
spontaneous generation has long been abandoned. This was the notion that simple life forms - and mice were thought to be simple life forms - could arise spontaneously.
I have observed that Creationists are often loose in their use of terms. I have never determined whether this is deliberate, to make their argument appear stronger, or accidental as a by product of ignorance.
Spontaneous generation was a sub-category of life from non-life. It has been replaced, in scientific circles with abiogenesis - another form of life from non-life. The difference between abiogenesis and spontaneous generation is that abiogenesis produces very simple life forms; probably simpler than anything existing today on the Earth.
So, spontaneous generation has been long discarded. Do evolutionists require abiogenesis for evolution to make sense? Absolutely not. One could believe that God created the first prokaryotes by miraculous intervention and thereafter evolution kicked in.
Now since most scientists follow a methodologically naturalistic paradigm (i.e. they work on the presumption that - until demonstrated otherwise - the universe can be explained without resorting to the supernatural) it follows that nealry all of them do accept that abiogenesis occured. But is is not a necessary condition for evolution to make sense.
Conclusion: point 1 is incorrect.
2) Spontaneous generation only happened once.
We shall assume that this is misapplication of the term and that the authors of your notes meant to say abiogenesis.
The current consensus of opinion is that we are all descended from a single ancestor. Does this mean that abiogenesis happened only once? Of course it doesn't. I am at a loss to see how a thinking person could make such a simple error of logic.
Life may have arisen through abiogenesis on multiple occassions, but all the other versions may have died out. Why would they die out? Survival of the fittest, or just plain bad luck. There is a nice little colony of life forms breeding away in a warm lake, when Wham! Bam! one of those pesky little bolides that were so common back then (look at the craters on the moon) slams into them and they are gone ........... for ever.
Conclusion: point 2 is incorrect.
3) All living this(sic) must be related for evolution to be true.
I smell another logical inconsistency. There is substantial evidence that all liing things are related, but this is not a pre-requisite for understanding evolution, or for it to make sense.
Some researchers have speculated that there might be another line of life, microscopic, from another common ancestor, arising from a separate abiogenesis event. They have considered ways in which we might identify such a life form. The balance of probabilities is that there is not. If there is it will exist in a very specialies, possibly isolated niche. However, its existence would in no way undermine evolution. Indeed it would likely support it, for it would show that multiple lineages, from different common ancestors, would still be subject to evolutionary pressures.
Conclusion: point 3 is incorrect.
4) Single cells evolved into multi cells.
Absolutely true.
We see single cells develop into multi-cells all the time, so there is a hint there. (You did start out as a fertilised egg, didn't you?)
We see transitional states between single celled organisms and multi-celled organisms. Slime molds are the classic example. They exist as single celled forms until the going gets tough. Then they form into a single entity, that produces fruting body that generates spores for the next generation.
Conclusion: point 4 is correct, but so what?
5) Certain invertebrates are related.
All invertebrates are related. We are all related. We all came from the same common ancestor. (Stereologist has given a rather confusing answer here when he says that invertebrates are unrelated to vertebrates. Frankly, rather than trying to interpret what he has said it will be much simpler to say 'Stereologist you are completely wrong', then let him clarify his intent.) So, what's the problem if invertebrates are related? Some are more closely related than others, but so what? This evidence for, not evidence against evolution.
Conclusion: point 5 is correct, but so what?
6) Somehow, invertebrates evolved into vertebrates.
Absolutely correct. And we have a pretty good idea of when and how thos occured and what organisms were involved.
This sounds like an Argument from Incredulity. (
I can't see how that could have happened!)
Conclusion: point 6 is correct, but so what?
7) Within vertebrates: Fish gave rise to amphibians
Amphibians to Reptiles
Reptiles to Birds
Birds to mammals
Sterologist has pointed out the foolish claim that birds gave rise to mammals. That gave me a chuckle. Who ever wrote these notes hasn't studied biology beyond sixth grade.
For the rest, correct. So?
Conclusion: point 7 is correct, but so what?
Flamofanor5, I'll let you query my responses before I deal with the other nonsense you had in your first post. Looking forward to your response.
