Jump to content


Photo

Wollemi Pine


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 794 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 31 August 2017 - 02:00 PM

This is mainly aimed at Mike the W because he frequently brings up the Wollemi Pine as if it was some major strike against evolution (I've no idea why).

from the "Backtracking" thread:
 

However we do have enough push-backs now to show how arguing-from-silence is a rather obtuse fallacy silly people make. To say that "because we don't find X in earlier rock therefore it didn't exist", has been explained to you many times now Wibble, to be a type of arguing from ignorance.

They said the same about pines, but now we find a 300 myo Wollemi pine.


The Wollemi Pine has been called a 'living fossil' because it was thought extinct. The most recent fossils being rare examples of pollen grains in two million years old sediment but peaking in abundance (according to the pollen record) 65-34 million years ago. The record may stretch back to 100 mya with fossils of leaves that show a close resemblance to Wollemia.

A relict population was rediscovered in a remote ravine in Australia in 1994, subsequent searches have found fewer than 100 trees and all within the same catchment.
 
source

Mike, I have tried to correct you several times now about the age you attribute to the Wollemi Pine in the fossil record. It is not 300 myo. Why carry on regardless with this error ? (If I am wrong, show me).

Where is the pushback with this ? We have found a species presumed extinct not an out of place species pushed back in the fossil record. Wollemi Pine is no more ancient than the Monkey Puzzle Tree which you will be familiar with I expect, which belongs to a different genus within the same family.

What is the problem with finding it is not extinct ? The fossil record suggests it had become much rarer 2 million years ago. If a formerly wide range dwindles to a small relict population it stands to reason that it could apparently disappear from the fossil record. And you can only get fossils where sediment is being laid down, and retained. If the geography of an area precludes that, then no fossils.

So please enlighten me, what's the big issue with the Wollemi Pine ?



#2 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 01 September 2017 - 04:12 AM

This is mainly aimed at Mike the W ...

However we do have enough push-backs now to show how arguing-from-silence is a rather obtuse fallacy silly people make. To say that "because we don't find X in earlier rock therefore it didn't exist", has been explained to you many times now Wibble, to be a type of arguing from ignorance.

...
So please enlighten me, ...

.
I sure did have to read that--the m-the-w bit--a few times before I thought I understood-enough. The first goal was to glean the meaning from the name, "arguing from silence", as I've described the oft-difficult connection between a named fallacy and it's name. Focusing on, "arguing-from-silence is a rather obtuse fallacy silly people make": Does one attempt to make an argument by being silent?; That would be a stretch and, here, we ought assume that facial expressions or hand signals aren't being employed.

Well, I decided that I ought get more information and move to the only other sentence in the paragraph, it being, "To say that 'because we don't find X in earlier rock therefore it didn't exist', has been explained to you many times now Wibble, to be a type of arguing from ignorance." This is no help, as it is not about "argument from silence."

I, then, went to pull surrounding context from Wibble's source:
.

...

Wibble: Why, has a hominin fossil been found in the Mesozoic or something ?


A red-herring you repeat as an ad nauseam fallacy. (repeating a false argument).

We don't expect to find hominens there, because our flood model doesn't say that humans were underwater fish that should be found in the Cambrian. Our models says that whatever organisms you find, happen to be the ones buried in that zone.

However we do have enough push-backs now to show how arguing-from-silence is a rather obtuse fallacy silly people make. To say that "because we don't find X in earlier rock therefore it didn't exist", has been explained to you many times now Wibble, to be a type of arguing from ignorance.

They said the same about pines, but now we find a 300 myo Wollemi pine. They said the same about grass and mammals, that they evolved much later, but now we find them with dinos.

So what are you going to do, repeat the fallacy? That's like declaring that stupidity is the new wisdom.
...

.
If I understand: Creationists ("we" "m-the-w") don't expect to find hominens in the Mesozoic ("there"). The reason is that our model asserts...uh, what is it? "There", the Mesozoic Era--245 million years ago to about 65 million years ago--containing "middle animals"; Triassic + Jurassic + Cretaceous; "Cambrian", is as accepted in paleontology, the first period of the Paleozoic Era, about 570 millions of years ago.

Taking the time-periods as defined and applying to m-the-w's sentence: We don't expect to find hominens in the time-frame 65 to 245 millions of years ago...uh, I can't find anything in an internet search using "hominen." Let's use "humans", as it is implied to mean "hominens" in the sentence, just so we can get through this.

Now, using "humans" for "hominens" and applying the definitions of Mesozoic and Cambrian to the sentence we get: We don't expect to find humans in the time-frame 65 to 245 millions of years ago because our model does not assert that humans were underwater fish that should be found 570 million years ago.

Exploding heads may ensue.

Perhaps, the sentence to follow the one responsible for exploding heads, the one ending the paragraph, might help. It is:
.

Our models says (sic) that whatever organisms you find, happen to be the ones buried in that zone.

.
In other words, if a fossilized organism is found in a zone, then it is because you found that organism in that zone.

Perhaps, it could be re-worded thus: If you don't find a fossilized organism in a zone, then that organism was not fossilized in that zone.

This last form is "being kind."

I can only conclude that "Wibble" is not sane.
  • mike the wiz likes this

#3 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 02 September 2017 - 02:34 AM

 

 

Wibble: So please enlighten me, what's the big issue with the Wollemi Pine ?

 

There isn't one. I made a chart showing about fifteen fossils, "out of place", and because I got one wrong (the pine) you took that and ran with it and turned it into this;

 

 

 

Wibble: he frequently brings up the Wollemi Pine as if it was some major strike against evolution

 

Not really, I just confused a living fossil with a fossil push back. Easy to do when you don't have a list in your head of which are which, like the other 99.9999999999999999% of people on the planet.

 

(Clue, the 99.9999% figure isn't to be taken as a literal calculation) :P :gotcha:



#4 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 02 September 2017 - 02:51 AM

Schera, I apologise for not explaining an argument-for-silence and not being as clear as I should be. Often in debate if I talk to a member like Wibble, where we have discussed these things often, I tend to forget that even though he may be clear on what I mean the other posters won't be because at that moment when I am typing, I am so focused on responding to him particularly.

 

I also get tired of explaining it to Wibble. He likes to use the "show me a human in an earlier layer" argument, as one of his favourite red-herrings, so we as creationists will then try desperately to show him a human in the cretaceous or whatever, him knowing that we don't find one. So it's like someone with a loaded dice with a weight in it saying, "throw a 6 to win".

 

The reason why it isn't the best argument is because creationists like me, don't accept the evolutionary version of what the rocks mean. We believe all of the rock in the record, represents rock containing limited dead things, and evolutionists believe it is a history of life on earth. Two very different starting points.

 

So the first point that is most important, that an evolutionist should realise, is that we argue that most if not all of the layers of rock from the various "eons", to us were all created in about one year. This means that if we as creationists find a dinosaur skull in a higher layer such as the Cretacious, rather than the Silurian, that this would not mean anything age-wise, for both the fossil you find in the Silurian and the Cretacious would have been laid down by the flood, in the same year.

 

The second point you have to consider is that we as creationists don't believe that various eons represent various times on earth but that the general trend or pattern we see, where we find certain types of creatures in certain types of eons, would represent to us, something we call ecological zonation. That just means that we believe that when the flood buried the various organisms, because those burials would have happened in the inundatory stage of the flood, when the super-continent (pangea) was still in place, these patterns we see represent different zones on that super-continent that would have existed in the antediluvian world. 

 

So I hope you can appreciate Schera, that if what the Cambrian, "era" really represents is a large ecological zone that existed 18,000 miles away from human habitation at least in the least farthest direction, that it would be reasonable to suppose that where the remnants of the organisms buried in that zone were now located, might not be anywhere near humans if they happened to be buried, too.

 

So then I was being sarcastic when I said to Wibble that I don't see a human as a fish, because if the Cambrian era wasn't an era but a niche where particular kinds of marine organisms exist then why would I expect to find a human there? If the Carbiniferous was a swampy, foresty area full of dinosaurs and insects, 15,000 miles away from the nearest human habitation on the super-continent that once existed, would I really expect to find a human in that layer?

 

Now it's not impossible we will find a human in one of these layers, and there is some evidence to suggest we might have, but it would be very fortunate to find that evidence.

 

As for an argument-from-silence fallacy it just means this kind of argumentation;

 

"Haha, you fool, you think grass existed at the time of dinosaurs, there has never been any found with them therefore grass did not exist yet."

 

Basically that is the argument and it is what Wibble argues - that because we don't find humans in very "old" layers like the Cambrian, it means humans hadn't evolved yet. 

 

The problem is Schera, it is a fallacy because people who argue that argument have been shown so many times that the silence from the fossil record turned out to be nothing. For example they thought mammals evolved after the dinosaurs, but now we do find fossils of mammals with them. 

 

So silence of particular species could mean several things rather than that one thing;

 

1. The organism might not have existed yet. (if evolutionary eons are true)

2. The organism wasn't buried in that location, randomly. (if the flood is true.)

3. We haven't found that organism yet.

(and any others you can think of Schera, with your good motive to have objective critical thinking skills. )


  • Gneiss girl likes this

#5 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 02 September 2017 - 04:08 AM

This is mainly aimed at Mike the W ...

...
This last form is "being kind."

I can only conclude that "Wibble" is not sane.

.
For the record, "wibble" may be considered "not sane" for the reason that he continues to "debate" with someone who it has been shown repeatedly peddles errors while pummeling others with named fallacies.

#6 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 02 September 2017 - 04:23 AM

Specifically, what error? it's dishonest to say false things about me Schera. Fallacies are errors I can prove. An argument from silence is a fallacy, and an error, if you conclude something doesn't exist because of it's silence you can only conclude that if it is conspicuous silence.

 

These fallacies I expound, I can google them all specifically and apply them and show where they are committed. Whereas your comment about me peddling errors is also fallacious as it's only a bare assertion.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users