I've never been here before. Ah. Perhaps.
I thought it was a conservative forum.
It is, but using yourself as a yardstick to measure conservatism (or just about anything else) is a sure-fire route to disappointment.
If even conservatives believe in something like evolutionism then it is little wonder that homosexuality is such an issue in Americana.
Err, well, there's your non-sequitur quota for the day.
But before going on a tangent to the disagreement, then what is your summary of the Tree Down Theory...
Sorry, I don't know the "Tree Down Theory" - as I suspect it's something you've invented, I think I'll probably do a poor job of summarizing it, let alone "defending" it.
... or the other explanations proferred to explain differences between kingdoms?
Such as?
You didn't back up your assertion by demonstrating any inaccuracy.
What would you prefer I do to "demonstrate" any inaccuracy? I can recommend some introductory texts on the theory of evolution, if you like.
Perhaps you can explain sexual dimorphism as well and break down the categories of male and female?
Explain in what sense? Why dimorphism exists?
These outcomes are not really the issue but I believe concern about these normative outcomes is what motivates people in descriptive debate.
Well, there's the problem, isn't it? People insist on attaching normative arguments to a descriptive theory. "Should" doesn't enter into the realm of evolutionary theory, any more that it does in any other scientific endeavor - the theory concerns itself with what is and was, not what should be. By way of analogy, the laws of physics tell you what will happen if you throw a baby out of a window, but those same laws are entirely silent on the matter of whether throwing babies out of windows is a good thing or a bad thing - for that, we must look elsewhere.
"What would you prefer I do to "demonstrate" any inaccuracy?"
Simply say how my summary of certain hypotheses of evolutionists are inaccurate. You made the assertion.
"Trees Down Scenario: Given an arboreal ancestor of a flying lineage, flight must have proceeded from the trees into the air. A semi-bipedal leaping and gliding animal could have evolved flight -- leaping off of trees would provide the acceleration and speed necessary for flight.
Gliding is most useful in the trees, so if that ancestor was a glider, then it must have co- opted its gliding structures into wings; it must have started to flap its gliding membrane. If the ancestor was not a glider, then its wings must have developed from another function of
the arms. These two hypotheses have been discussed since the 1880's."
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/flight/evolve.html My summary of this notion: "Once upon a time a population of avian ancestors jumped out of trees and killed themselves enough times that they eventually grew wings and flew away."
What is innacurate? Why did you suspect that I invented this notion of things jumping from trees eventually growing wings and flying away? Do you sense that it is fairly inane?
"'... or the other explanations proferred to explain differences between kingdoms?'
Such as?"
Another similar explanation, "Once upon a time a population of fish that were mammalian ancestors threw themselves onto the land enough times, killing themselves, that they eventually grew legs, the mammalian lung, the mammalian heart, etc.etc..... and walked away."
Yes I know that those who believe in the ideology of evolutionism arrange a sequence of aquatic, semi-aquatic to land here. Not surprisng that placing the environment in sequence that way makes it easier to conjure images of sequence in the face of observation of Nature as typological. Also of note, going in reverse is more difficult with the mythological narrative of, "Once upon a time, a group of mammals that were whale ancestors threw themselves into the sea enough times, killing themselves, that they eventually grew all of the soft anatomy typical to aquatic mammals and swam away.")
"People insist on attaching normative arguments to a descriptive theory."
There is a universal sense that all is not as it should be. This statement is self evident and evident in the self. Also anyone with any common sense also believes in the basic categorical discriminations of civilization and ought to be concerned with the impact of "descriptive" mythological narratives that go against civilization. Especially when such narratives are made up to suit a conclusion that's already been decided on a priori.
How do you get it to italicize quotes of the other person?