Jump to content


Photo

Why Do Evolutists Persist?


  • Please log in to reply
155 replies to this topic

#101 Guest_paulatreides0_*

Guest_paulatreides0_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 May 2010 - 03:56 PM

Let it also be remembered that creatures with similar phenotypes tend to express it in their genes. Animals that are very similar to one another structurally tend to be related to each other genetically as well, this is because of how genes work and phenotypes being expressions of the genotypes.

This is why apes are very close to man, genetically speaking. If you were to open up both a human and an ape, you would see that they are almost exactly identical in a lot of ways. This is why comparative anatomy works, because the findings support what it says in the genes.

For example, a deer would be closer, genetically speaking, to a horse than to a human. Now, in terms of morphology, this is again shown to be true. They share very similar structures anatomically as well. Conversely, an ape would be closer, genetically speaking to a man than to a horse, and if you look at the genetic similarities, they support this as well.

The reason why comparative anatomy is considered to work is because it coincides with what the genetic evidence gives.

Also, to clarify something about "new genetic information," this in no way, shape, or form translates into added genetic information. It simply means genetic information that was originally not there, not an addition, but a new thing.

#102 rico

rico

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 669 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Jesus, computers, physics, video games, philosophy, epistomology
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • USA

Posted 22 May 2010 - 06:38 PM

New Age Agnostic? Is there anything wrong with that??

They didn't have new age for the worldview.... Hence I went with Agnostic, (isn't that the one where you are searching for spiritual truth etc??? I am not too familiar with the names I guess)

To simplify, I had a Christian upbringing. However, (I am evil), I turned from the Christian Religion due to complications from my Church. I do still believe in a God or spiritual creator force, etc... ;)

View Post

We're saved by Christ alone, we've all sinned but Jesus died for us....
I think its a spiritual issue: self assemby with no cause - what evolved?
Welcome to the forum.

#103 bilbo

bilbo

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • Age: 48
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • US

Posted 21 June 2010 - 08:35 AM

Hi Gilbo12345,

OK. Happy you live in Australia. Great country. Unfortunately, ignorance does not honor borders (please do not take this as insulting - I do not equate ignorance with lack of intelligence - it is simply lack of information or understanding).
r
1) No transitional forms of fossils? Fossils are nearly all transitional. You are asking the wrong questions, which clearly demonstrates your lack of understanding of science and the scientific method. Science has been proven over and over again to work, whereas there is no supporting evidence for creationism or faith in a god (you claim to be agnostic, but most creationists are not, so I am being general here). You must understand that in order to use deductive reasoning, you cannot start with your preconceived notion that evolution isn't real, then use arguments to support that supposition. You lack logical reasoning...but, all who believe in faith, or creationism, must, by design, defy logic in order to do so.

2) Mutation is a key aspect of evolution. Your use of it here, however, again reflects your misunderstanding of what evolution and natural selection are. They are not the same. One supports the other. Bacteria, exposed to antibiotics, do not mutate to survive it. You are pulling ideas out of thin air.

Survival of the fittest (not Darwin's term, but it supports evolution and demonstrates natural selection), in this case of bacteria, simply means survival of those resistant to antibiotics. These more fit survivors are the ones that propogate the species, thus resulting in a long-term change in the species. Same as if only those people who survivied small pox were able to procreate, then, all humans, in time, would be resistant to small pox.

While this, in effect, may decrease the genetic potential of the bacteria, it greatly increases the odds of survivability...otherwise, bacteria would have been erradicated by now.

Evolution, is when a tiny mutation (which occur all the time, or we'd all look the same), provides an advantage to a particular animal, that increases survivability, and over time, as more mutations and/or environmental isolation occur, leads to more dramatic changes in looks, behavior, or characteristics, which is itself, supported through selective breeding of individuals. Thus different finches on different pacific islands, are all the in the same family, but, due to differences in their beaks, and limited gene pool, leading to continuation of the same traits, have now constitute different species.


Domestication is a form of forced evolution...it is an unnatural form of selection, but has a similar effect (this is what is so strange...people try to debunk evolution and natural selection, even though they admit how breeding of dogs, cats, tomatos, works...it's all based on the same principles of genetics...one is natural, the other is forced, by humans. Humans forced selection of dogs by first allowing friendly dogs to survive, and killed others, or bred them into oblivion. Just like some squirrels or raccoons are friendlier than others, some dogs, being smarter than your average raccoon, were able to be tamed, then used to breed other tame dogs, from a limited gene pool. You are again showing a complete lack of understanding of science, and what evolution and natural selection are all about.

You say that no new genetic information is made, rather it is lost, therefore, this is the opposite of evolution. Actually, it is evolution. You just can't understand it. Genetic information is not lost as you say, some genetic traits are simply selected over others. If genetic info was lost, there would never be an Albino. Albinos are not as fit for survival (in the harsher environment of 10,000 years ago), therefore they were not "selected" for long-term survival. Thus there are few of them today. The genetic info is never lost, simply selected to the back corner. You need a course in genetics. Your lack of understanding of grade school genetics is astounding.

3) You cannot mix science with philosophy, as you attempt to do here. No one says science can explain everything, we are limited to what we can observe, test, or deduce. You want science to prove something is evil? What a warped view of what science is. You are trying to mix social science with physical & biological science. Can't do it. You want science to prove what human society considers to be just or unjust?? Very strange indeed - some humans feel stoning a raped woman to death is just...science has nothing to do with this. You miss the point entirely and until you get an education, it seems having an intelligent discussion with you would be futile.

You gleefully point out that Darwin's writings contained racism. Well, what is defined as racism today, was not defined, by western culture, as racism 150 years ago. Many people back then would not have considered slavery of African Americans to be racism...many actually felt that what appeared to be unsophisticated cultures simply couldn't manage themselves anyway. The Christian church itself has seen nothing wrong with the use of genocide, murder, extortion, and torture, but they no longer murder nonbelievers. Their attitudes, like those from the past who we would now consider racist, have evolved.

Also, whether or not someone followed cultural norms of the time, has no bearing here.

Lastly, here, you say that if scientist could "evolve" an animal, it doesn't mean that's how evolution happened. Again, your lack of scientific knowledge and understanding is demonstrated. One does not need to "see" something occur in order to prove it. One cannot look at an atom, yet we have proven they exist. You cannot see gravity, yet, I suspect, even you, admits it exists.

It has been proven, in countless situations, that when scientists are unable to actually observe something occur, may use evidence to prove their theory. Thus, we harnessed electricity, proved gravity, proved that the Earth, contrary to church doctrine, is actually not the center of the universe (one could not observe this at the time, one could only use the evidence to prove this theory). What a wake-up call that was to creationists...and to think the church billed its pope as infallible.

Scientists could not see Pluto, for many years, but could prove a planet (or planetoid) was there, based on the evidence seen (changes in Neptune's trajectory). One cannot see a black hole, yet, we know they are there based on supporting evidence. Again, you need to reread your middle school textbooks to learn how science works, how one proves theories, what reason is, how to use deductive reasoning, and to reread your genetics textbooks, without assuming, as you do, that creationism is correct before you begin investigating. If humans, throughout history, thought that way, we would never have evolved beyond's Aristotle's ideas.


If you believe evolution is false, you must also disbelieve facts that humans are taller than we used to be, that some of us are resistant to diseases that kill others, that some of us have blue eyes, blonde hair, or that numerous earlier species of hominids (Cro Magnon, Homo Erectus, Homo Habilus, etc, etc, etc).

Sorry, but if you are unable to discuss science, at your age, without a basic understanding of science, the scientific method, reason, or logic, there is little point in answering any of your posts.


Firstly I live in Australia, I am an AUSSIE :D

1) Can you provide RESULTS of the TESTS on Evolution, ie testable as in tested within a lab... Fossils DO NOT provide the evidence evolutionists hoped for, there are NO TRANSITIONAL forms. As such the fossil "evidence" of evolutionists is merely hope and speculation... FAITH perhaps??? :rolleyes: Even Darwin himself said his theory is wrong if there are no transitional forms found.... I know some people say... "But we might find one in the future"... that isn't Science, it's wishful thinking.

2) Yes bacteria do develop resistance, however is this due to actual mutations or perhaps the genes of the bacteria itself, (or perhaps already made plasmids from other bacteria)... What happens with your example is that only a few survive, thus DECREASING the GENETIC potenial of the species. This is akin to domestication, where a loss of genetic information is seen by "natural selection"... Thus natural selection is accomplishing the OPPOSITE of EVOLUTION as no new genetic information is being made, rather genetic information is being lost.

Yet at the end of the day it is still a bacteria cell, so it hasn't changed species anyway.... However due to its high variablility via plasmids... What exactly construes a different bacteria species anyway??

3) Who says Science can prove God? More importantly, who says Science can prove EVERYTHING?? Can Science prove that rape and murder are evil? Can science prove that racism is unjust? (read Darwins book that has tons of racism), Can Science prove that I love my parents?... No Science is not the be-all-end-all of truth. As such your entire arguement is foundless and irrational... (just like evolution :P ) Science can't even prove evolution, since even if scientists are able to genetically manipulate an animal to "evolve", who is to say THAT was how it happened?

4) If science works "through testable evidence", can you please provide some.. Rather than claiming there is. I can claim I have been to the moon.... Does that make it more or less true? ;)

View Post



#104 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 21 June 2010 - 10:29 AM

Unfortunately, ignorance does not honor borders (please do not take this as insulting - I do not equate ignorance with lack of intelligence - it is simply lack of information or understanding).


Double standard? If you were educated in the "facts" of the fossil record or the empirical rates of fossilization of all living species, then it is you who are not understanding. Please don't assume people are ignorant because they have researched and educated themselves beyond textbook indoctrination or anti-creation propaganda.

If you believe evolution is false, you must also disbelieve facts that humans are taller than we used to be,


People have better nutrition and food preperation than they did 100 years ago. Diet can hardly be considered a plausable mechanism for universal common descent. LOL

African bush men still have a primitive hunter-gatherer lifestyle and they have an average height of less than 5 ft. tall.

or that numerous earlier species of hominids (Cro Magnon, Homo Erectus, Homo Habilus, etc, etc, etc).


The differences between modern human and earlier humans such as neanderthal were only 0.1-0.5%, which means the different phenotype had to be pathological not genetic. Coincidentally, the only early humans who didn't display a disfigured phenotype were the Cro Magnon and they were the only group known to fish and have a good supply of vitamin D. Once again, diet is the answer not evolution.



Thanks.

#105 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 21 June 2010 - 12:56 PM

Hi Gilbo12345,

OK. Happy you live in Australia. Great country. Unfortunately, ignorance does not honor borders (please do not take this as insulting - I do not equate ignorance with lack of intelligence - it is simply lack of information or understanding).
r
1) No transitional forms of fossils? Fossils are nearly all transitional. You are asking the wrong questions, which clearly demonstrates your lack of understanding of science and the scientific method. Science has been proven over and over again to work, whereas there is no supporting evidence for creationism or faith in a god (you claim to be agnostic, but most creationists are not, so I am being general here). You must understand that in order to use deductive reasoning, you cannot start with your preconceived notion that evolution isn't real, then use arguments to support that supposition. You lack logical reasoning...but, all who believe in faith, or creationism, must, by design, defy logic in order to do so.

2)  Mutation is a key aspect of evolution. Your use of it here, however, again reflects your misunderstanding of what evolution and natural selection are. They are not the same. One supports the other. Bacteria, exposed to antibiotics, do not mutate to survive it. You are pulling ideas out of thin air.

Survival of the fittest (not Darwin's term, but it supports evolution and demonstrates natural selection), in this case of bacteria, simply means survival of those resistant to antibiotics. These more fit survivors are the ones that propogate the species, thus resulting in a long-term change in the species. Same as if only those people who survivied small pox were able to procreate, then, all humans, in time, would be resistant to small pox.

While this, in effect, may decrease the genetic potential of the bacteria, it greatly increases the odds of survivability...otherwise, bacteria would have been erradicated by now.

Evolution, is when a tiny mutation (which occur all the time, or we'd all look the same), provides an advantage to a particular animal, that increases survivability, and over time, as more mutations and/or environmental isolation occur, leads to more dramatic changes in looks, behavior, or characteristics, which is itself, supported through selective breeding of individuals. Thus different finches on different pacific islands, are all the in the same family, but, due to differences in their beaks, and limited gene pool, leading to continuation of the same traits, have now constitute different species.
Domestication is a form of forced evolution...it is an unnatural form of selection, but has a similar effect (this is what is so strange...people try to debunk evolution and natural selection, even though they admit how breeding of dogs, cats, tomatos, works...it's all based on the same principles of genetics...one is natural, the other is forced, by humans.  Humans forced selection of dogs by first allowing friendly dogs to survive, and killed others, or bred them into oblivion. Just like some squirrels or raccoons are friendlier than others, some dogs, being smarter than your average raccoon, were able to be tamed, then used to breed other tame dogs, from a limited gene pool. You are again showing a complete lack of understanding of science, and what evolution and natural selection are all about.

You say that no new genetic information is made, rather it is lost, therefore, this is the opposite of evolution.  Actually, it is evolution. You just can't understand it. Genetic information is not lost as you say, some genetic traits are simply selected over others. If genetic info was lost, there would never be an Albino. Albinos are not as fit for survival (in the harsher environment of 10,000 years ago), therefore they were not "selected" for long-term survival. Thus there are few of them today. The genetic info is never lost, simply selected to the back corner.  You need a course in genetics. Your lack of understanding of grade school genetics is astounding.

3) You cannot mix science with philosophy, as you attempt to do here. No one says science can explain everything, we are limited to what we can observe, test, or deduce. You want science to prove something is evil? What a warped view of what science is. You are trying to mix social science with physical & biological science. Can't do it. You want science to prove what human society considers to be just or unjust?? Very strange indeed - some humans feel stoning a raped woman to death is just...science has nothing to do with this. You miss the point entirely and until you get an education, it seems having an intelligent discussion with you would be futile.

You gleefully point out that Darwin's writings contained racism.  Well, what is defined as racism today, was not defined, by western culture, as racism 150 years ago. Many people back then would not have considered slavery of African Americans to be racism...many actually felt that what appeared to be unsophisticated cultures simply couldn't manage themselves anyway. The Christian church itself has seen nothing wrong with the use of genocide, murder, extortion, and torture, but they no longer murder nonbelievers. Their attitudes, like those from the past who we would now consider racist, have evolved.

Also, whether or not someone followed cultural norms of the time, has no bearing here.

Lastly, here, you say that if scientist could "evolve" an animal, it doesn't mean that's how evolution happened. Again, your lack of scientific knowledge and understanding is demonstrated.  One does not need to "see" something occur in order to prove it. One cannot look at an atom, yet we have proven they exist. You cannot see gravity, yet, I suspect, even you, admits it exists.

It has been proven, in countless situations, that when scientists are unable to actually observe something occur, may use evidence to prove their theory. Thus, we harnessed electricity, proved gravity, proved that the Earth, contrary to church doctrine, is actually not the center of the universe (one could not observe this at the time, one could only use the evidence to prove this theory). What a wake-up call that was to creationists...and to think the church billed its pope as infallible.

Scientists could not see Pluto, for many years, but could prove a planet (or planetoid) was there, based on the evidence seen (changes in Neptune's trajectory). One cannot see a black hole, yet, we know they are there based on supporting evidence. Again, you need to reread your middle school textbooks to learn how science works, how one proves theories, what reason is, how to use deductive reasoning, and to reread your genetics textbooks, without assuming, as you do, that creationism is correct before you begin investigating. If humans, throughout history, thought that way, we would never have evolved beyond's Aristotle's ideas.
If you  believe evolution is false, you must also disbelieve facts that humans are taller than we used to be, that some of us are resistant to diseases that kill others, that some of us have blue eyes, blonde hair, or that numerous earlier species of hominids (Cro Magnon, Homo Erectus, Homo Habilus, etc, etc, etc).

Sorry, but if you are unable to discuss science, at your age, without a basic understanding of science, the scientific method, reason, or logic, there is little point in answering any of your posts.

View Post


Yes well what I can I say to that.... :lol: ;)

1. I asked you for transitional forms not you blabbing on about how right you are, and how wrong creationists are. I said before claiming something isn't the same as showing evidence. If you really wish to show how right you are, cough up the evidence and leave YOUR preaching at the door step.

2. I think it is you who is confused.. Seriously...

You said this yourself

"While this, in effect, may decrease the genetic potential of the bacteria"

Hmm so the genetic potential has DECREASED... so how can NEW information (genes) needed to change a fish to a dog... Since genes CODE for new information that CODE for the features of an organism.. Having LESS information is the OPPOSITE of evolution.. Can you understand this concept?

Yes some genetic information is more dominant than others, HOWEVER having decreased genetic potential IS the opposite to evolution. ie if a trait is breed out (like domestication as you pointed out) This is logical according to how genes function.

All your points are sources of variation.. nothing more.. At the end of the day the bacteria that is resistant to a drug IS STILL A BACTERIA, therefore it hasn't changed, therefore it hasn't evolved... SAME with Darwins finches, they are still finches.. they haven't mutated into monkeys or lizards they are STILL their same kind. In fact Darwins finches can ALL INTERBREED meaning they weren't even New species at all anyway.

Unless you wish to say that any change is enough to call a new species... If so then I am a different species of human to you and you to your children since we all have differences in appearance, size, shape and colour.

3. No no no... You are twisting my words. Other Evos, (some of my lectuers and class mates), believe that science can prove everything. What I have shown on here is a few examples of where science CANNOT prove everything. Next time you wish to try and twist my words can you at least quote me... It doesn't help me one bit to prove that science can prove everything, so what you have said about my words is a false representation.

4. How does evidence for Pluto enter this?..lol basically you are saying well if science was right about pluto then evolution is right too. Is that the statement you are making? :lol: (I meant give evidence for your allegations for evolution... you have made many claims, but with no backing or proof.... "bag of wind" comes to mind :P

Lol... I have read my UNIVERSITY textbooks, and you know what is funny... The only advantageous mutation they give is that people with sickle cell anemia are resistant to malaria... Hmm since you know everything about everything, can you explain to me how a decrease in overall fitness can be percieved as an advantaegous mutation? However since (as you said), mutation is evolutions main plan of attack, surely there should be more examples of advantageous mutations.... Rather than the myriad of genetic defects that all mutations are...
Or perhaps because you know everything you would be kind to answer this question I have asked that no-one can answer on this thread :rolleyes:

http://www.evolution...&st=40&p=56860

I have been using scientific reasoning and logic, using personal attacks won't give you any more credability, nor are they "scientific".. Now for the last time I ask YOU to show some evidence of your alleged transitional fossils and show how mutations can be benefitial. No more tangents about how wrong I am because of this and that... Show evidence of your allegations about me or otherwise spouting off untruths is slander.

#106 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 26 June 2010 - 12:17 PM

Hmm so the genetic potential has DECREASED... so how can NEW information (genes) needed to change a fish to a dog... Since genes CODE for new information that CODE for the features of an organism.. Having LESS information is the OPPOSITE of evolution.. Can you understand this concept?


Natural Selection decreases the number of alleles, you are right.

I've been thinking about beneficial mutations. Reading forums like these do make me think in ways that forums that agree with me can never do.

How many deleterious mutations are there? Probably dozens, maybe hundreds. Why? Because we spot something obviously wrong. A leg where an antenna should be; a cluster of cancers afflicting one family.

Bad mutations stick out like a sore thumb, because they make huge phenotypic chnges. We can see them.

Now, consider that there will be thousands of mutations, if we include bacteria millions. Only a few hundred (possibly less) are actually documented. Where are all these other mutations?

Some of them will get repaired, but many more will not. Some of these will be harmful but will not be harmful in a major way, so we will not see the effect. Others will be neutral, so we will not see them at all.

Some will be beneficial, but the effect won't be noticeable. There is a reason why they won't be noticeable, and that is if the change was big then it would be harmful because any big change too a well tuned machine is likely to harm it.

What does this mean? Over time there will be subtle changes and an increase in variation due to mutations. Natural Selection will remove the worst of the mutations leaving species that are better adapted to their environment.

The conclusion? Over long periods of time, we will expect species to change. A not-a-dog evolving into not-quite-a-dog and from there into almost-a-dog and then into a dog.

This isn't speculation, the evidence is there. The signature of its common ancestor is empirically verifiable.

When it comes to transitionals, what would you expect a transitional to look like?

#107 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 26 June 2010 - 02:33 PM

...

What does this mean?  Over time there will be subtle changes and an increase in variation due to mutations.  Natural Selection will remove the worst of the mutations leaving species that are better adapted to their environment.

The conclusion?  Over long periods of time, we will expect species to change.  A not-a-dog evolving into not-quite-a-dog and from there into almost-a-dog and then into a dog.

View Post

Edit By ikester7579. It's best not to make things to personal.

We all knew it was coming; you could literally paste this to the end of every thread PhilC has been involved in. :rolleyes:

This isn't speculation, the evidence is there.  The signature of its common ancestor is empirically verifiable.

Yes, it is speculation. The only signature is that of God's common design.

When it comes to transitionals, what would you expect a transitional to look like?

I wouldn't, there are none.

#108 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 26 June 2010 - 10:56 PM

I wouldn't, there are none.


Then how may we present evidence?

#109 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 27 June 2010 - 03:27 AM

Then how may we present evidence?

View Post


Present it, but prepare to defend it logically, rationally and scientifically.

What point you're missing here, is that bobabelever is saying "based on all the pseudo-evidence presented thus far, it has all 'thus far' failed." Therefore when you said "When it comes to transitionals, what would you expect a transitional to look like?", he said "I wouldn't, there are none."

He may have been able to phrase it better, for your sensibilities. But his point was plain.

#110 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 27 June 2010 - 06:16 AM

Fair point, but I've been here before. I can present an example that is a great example of a transitional but it will be rejected for the wrong reasons. I don't mind and have never minded people rejecting evolution when they understand it (Gilbo on this forum is one) but to present evidence and then argue about irrelevant points is frustrating.

A transitional will be a fully formed organism, but with traits from two seperate taxonomic groups. Not just any traits, though. They have to be along certain prescribed lines.

I've presented evidence like that but then spent ages saying that it is a transitional even if we group it in one taxonomic area

One example of this, which I'm not going to use in this thread but an example of what I mean is Archaeopteryx which has features from two groups (reptiles and birds) bit which I have spent ages arguing about just because we actually classify it as a bird. It is pointless arguing that it is classified as a bird therefore it can't be a transitional because that view is a strawman.

If I talk about the physical details of a skeleton but just get stonewalled because of how we classify it then the debate will go nowhere.

#111 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 27 June 2010 - 08:01 AM

Edit By ikester7579. It's best not to make things to personal.

View Post

I apologize PhilC, I did step out of line by posting something that was directly personal and sarcastic.

#112 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 28 June 2010 - 06:24 AM

No problem, Boba! Keep up the good work; your posts are thought provoking. :blink:

#113 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 28 June 2010 - 09:19 AM

Fair point, but I've been here before.  I can present an example that is a great example of a transitional but it will be rejected for the wrong reasons. 

View Post

If you have, I have yet to see it. And, having had been in this debate for nearly two decades now, I’ve pretty much heard them all, and would happily welcome some new information.


I don't mind and have never minded people rejecting evolution when they understand it (Gilbo on this forum is one) but to present evidence and then argue about irrelevant points is frustrating.

View Post

You are assuming you opponent doesn’t understand evolution, instead of the fact that they’re merely disagreeing with your particular brand or opinion of evolution.

A transitional will be a fully formed organism, but with traits from two seperate taxonomic groups.  Not just any traits, though.  They have to be along certain prescribed lines.

View Post

Witch provides fodder for previous comment. A “transitional” would be somewhere in between your definition, because there would have to be a fin “transitioning” to a leg or arm within that kind, or a pair of lips transitioning into a beak within that kind. That’s what “transitional” means (by definition). It is the “process or period in which something undergoes a change and passes from one state, stage, form, or activity to another”

I've presented evidence like that but then spent ages saying that it is a transitional even if we group it in one taxonomic area

View Post

Again, I have yet to see all of this “evidence” you have purported to have presented.

One example of this, which I'm not going to use in this thread but an example of what I mean is Archaeopteryx which has features from two groups (reptiles and birds) bit which I have spent ages arguing about just because we actually classify it as a bird.  It is pointless arguing that it is classified as a bird therefore it can't be a transitional because that view is a strawman.

View Post

The Archaeopteryxis a blatant committal of the straw man fallacy you are attempting to attribute an easily refuted position. You are purporting a supposition as a fact. Besides, the Archaeopteryx has been fully refuted as a transitional for many reasons (included hoaxes notwithstanding):
http://www.darwinism...story_2_06.html
http://www.conservap...m/Archaeopteryx
http://www.evidencepress.com/faq-2.htm
http://www.harunyahy...iondeceit06.php


Plus, in order for an Archaeopteryx to be considered transitional, it would have to be found with scales “transitioning” into feathers as well. Instead, we find Archaeopteryx fully formed as it currently is (according to the few specimens we have).


If I talk about the physical details of a skeleton but just get stonewalled because of how we classify it then the debate will go nowhere.

View Post


Because you would be proceeding from presupposition, not from fact.

#114 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 28 June 2010 - 04:08 PM

Instead, we find Archaeopteryx fully formed as it currently is (according to the few specimens we have).


Every single one of those links says the same as you do here, Archaeopteryx cannot be a transitional because it is a fully formed bird.

Evolutionists know it is a fully formed bird! That isn't the point.

Look at what I wrote:

One example of this, which I'm not going to use in this thread but an example of what I mean is Archaeopteryx which has features from two groups (reptiles and birds) bit which I have spent ages arguing about just because we actually classify it as a bird. It is pointless arguing that it is classified as a bird therefore it can't be a transitional because that view is a strawman.


See, I say it is classified as a bird, and that I have spent ages arguing with creationists because they say it can't be a transitional because it is a bird! We get nowhere, and that is why I brought this fossil up rather than the one I intended to.

There are particular well defined reasons why evolutionists say Archaeopteryx is a transitional, but I never get round to discussing them with creationists because they keep insisting the obvious.

Both sides agree it is a bird!

Because you would be proceeding from presupposition, not from fact.


No, I would use the empirical evidence.

#115 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 28 June 2010 - 05:17 PM

No, I would use the empirical evidence.

View Post


If you actually proceeded on "the empirical evidence" then you'd have the ability to freely admit that there is absolutely no empirical evidence for macro-evolution. But, based upon your steadfast dogmatism when it comes to "transitionals" (which IS macro), defeats your attempt at proceeding on "the empirical evidence".

And your positing of Archaeopteryx in this thread, with the pretense of innocence, was nothing more than what you knew to be wrong, as a pretense to push the envelope. And it is a blatant usage of “Red Herring” fallacy ( I’m going to posit Archaeopteryx, but I’m not really using it as an argument.. And, by the way there are transitionals!) the Stolen Concept fallacy (which is self refuting at its base because the concepts on which an argument logically depends is denied in the argument itself).

These are equivocations Phil.

#116 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 29 June 2010 - 01:43 AM

If you actually proceeded on "the empirical evidence" then you'd have the ability to freely admit that there is absolutely no empirical evidence for macro-evolution. But, based upon your steadfast dogmatism when it comes to "transitionals" (which IS macro), defeats your attempt at proceeding on "the empirical evidence".


There is empirical evidence despite the repeated creationist assertions that there is none.

And your positing of Archaeopteryx in this thread, with the pretense of innocence, was nothing more than what you knew to be wrong, as a pretense to push the envelope. And it is a blatant usage of “Red Herring” fallacy ( I’m going to posit Archaeopteryx, but I’m not really using it as an argument.. And, by the way there are transitionals!) the Stolen Concept fallacy (which is self refuting at its base because the concepts on which an argument logically depends is denied in the argument itself).

These are equivocations Phil.


I was actually using it as a stalking horse, to draw out the arguments against transitionals, and if we get past the obvious misrepresentations (such as 'it can't be a transitional because it is a bird') then we would be at a point where we can look in a more unbiased way at the evidence for other examples.

If I supplied my other example you would just say "but it is an insect" or "but it is a fish" or "but it is a reptile" or whatever group I was planning on examining. Using Archaeoptryx as a stalking horse will give us the opportunity to deal with the question "if it is part of one taxonomic group, how can it also be a transitional?" which is the question creationists don't ask.

It was not intended to deceive, though, and I have presented Archaeoptryx. as evidence now. If we get anywhere with that then I will proceed with others, but Archaeoptryx is instructive as it will, I hope, eventually lead to a discussion of the actual evidence. That is the point I am aiming at.

Where were we? Oh yes, you were telling me that it is a bird and I said that I knew.

#117 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 29 June 2010 - 04:29 AM

It was not intended to deceive, though, and I have presented Archaeoptryx. as evidence now.  If we get anywhere with that then I will proceed with others, but Archaeoptryx is instructive as it will, I hope, eventually lead to a discussion of the actual evidence.  That is the point I am aiming at.

View Post


Aren't there non-avian dinosaurs that have feather like coverings except without the obvious appendages for flight?

#118 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 29 June 2010 - 05:19 AM

There is empirical evidence despite the repeated creationist assertions that there is none.

View Post

Once again, saying it’s so, doesn’t make it so Phil. And to do so without evidences is nothing short of equivocation in all it’s grandeur. And, you have yet to provide ANY evidences (other than magically waiving your hand and saying so).

I was actually using it as a stalking horse, to draw out the arguments against transitionals, and if we get past the obvious misrepresentations (such as 'it can't be a transitional because it is a bird') then we would be at a point where we can look in a more unbiased way at the evidence for other examples.

View Post

No, you were actually equivocating due to lack of evidence; and wasting time too boot. All of this has been exposed over and over in your postings Phil. Sudden appearances are not transitional evidences, they show up fully formed as if they were designed this way (so your dragging of this “red herring” across this forum is refuted).
And you use of the stalking horse fallacy is misused as well. It is a weaker form of the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy that has trapped your accusations once again.

If I supplied my other example you would just say "but it is an insect" or "but it is a fish" or "but it is a reptile" or whatever group I was planning on examining.  Using Archaeoptryx as a stalking horse will give us the opportunity to deal with the question "if it is part of one taxonomic group, how can it also be a transitional?" which is the question creationists don't ask.

View Post

Because an insect is an insect, and a fish is a fish Phil; your lack of evidence to backup your claims, is itself, well, evidence! Evidence, that you have no evidence. You are using your false cause post hoc, ergo propter fallacy in a circulus in demonstrando.

It was not intended to deceive, though, and I have presented Archaeoptryx. as evidence now.  If we get anywhere with that then I will proceed with others, but Archaeoptryx is instructive as it will, I hope, eventually lead to a discussion of the actual evidence.  That is the point I am aiming at.

View Post


To use a deception, to hide a deception, is still a deception Phil.

Where were we?  Oh yes, you were telling me that it is a bird and I said that I knew.

View Post

And, as a part of your self admitted deception, we are back at your tautology. Your “exposed” illogic.

#119 OneHourPhoto

OneHourPhoto

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Melbourne

Posted 29 June 2010 - 05:34 AM

Archaeopteryx has always been very controversial from its original discovery. I find this an interesting read:

http://www.scientifi...x-dinosaur-bird

#120 OneHourPhoto

OneHourPhoto

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Melbourne

Posted 29 June 2010 - 05:35 AM

Aren't there non-avian dinosaurs that have feather like coverings except without the obvious appendages for flight?

View Post


Some recent discoveries have unearthed some dinosaur fossils that are being linked to feathers and birds, depending on what you read you will get a different answer, the media for example are painting a picture of the discoveries as reptilians covered in feathers, yet when you read the original paper it mentions nothing about feathers, or the scientists responsible for the paper hypothesize that it could have feathers but no substantiating evidence was found with the fossils.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users