Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How Creationism Explains Hominid Fossil Skulls (FINAL STATEMENTS ONLY)
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 94 of 137 (601568)
01-21-2011 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by ICANT
01-21-2011 2:09 PM


Re: Transmutation vs Evolution, Macro & Micro
Hi, ICANT.
ICANT writes:
Taq writes:
Which of the fossils in the post above are different critters from humans, and what criteria are you using?
Which one is less than 10,000 years old?
Two problems:
  1. Circular argument: you believe that humans are less than 10,000 years old. In order to support this, you need something other than the age that comes to the same conclusion.
  2. The 1 species of hominid that is less than 10,000 years old is identical to some hominids that are more than 10,000 years old, so the age doesn't help you much anyway.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by ICANT, posted 01-21-2011 2:09 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by ICANT, posted 01-21-2011 2:47 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 97 of 137 (601572)
01-21-2011 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by ICANT
01-21-2011 2:28 PM


Re: Transmutation vs Evolution, Macro & Micro
Hi, ICANT.
ICANT writes:
Since I am told here that if they can't breed they are a different species I made the statement: "Just a different species of the same critter".
Would you classify the two horses in my avatar as different critters?
This actually makes a lot of sense, ICANT.
Still, I'm bit confused about where this leaves your argument in terms of "transmutation." Let me ask a few questions:
Do you accept that mutations accumulate steadily over time?
Do you accept that physical changes often accompany mutations?
Do you accept that reproductive isolation would allow different sets of mutations and accompanying physical changes to accumulate over time?
Do you accept that the hominid skulls in that picture you've been talking about display physical changes that could be related to mutations?
Do you accept that this would be evolution?

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by ICANT, posted 01-21-2011 2:28 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by ICANT, posted 01-21-2011 3:22 PM Blue Jay has replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 109 of 137 (601599)
01-21-2011 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by ICANT
01-21-2011 3:22 PM


Re: Transmutation vs Evolution, Macro & Micro
Hi, ICANT.
You've always struck me as a decent and honest person.
But, these answers you gave me don't seem very honest. It seems like you know the conclusion that I want you to arrive at, and you're deliberately choosing the answers to the questions that will prevent you from arriving at that conclusion. Give it some honest consideration!
ICANT writes:
In fact isn't all our physical problems caused by a mutation?
We don't have to talk about beneficial and deleterious mutations right now: we only have to talk about whether or not the differences between those hominid skulls are consistent with mutations.
-----
ICANT writes:
Bluejay writes:
Do you accept that physical changes often accompany mutations?
I sure do. At one time I could bench press 400 lbs. Now I have a problem with a hundred lb sack of salt.
Okay, this is probably not a mutation.
-----
ICANT writes:
Bluejay writes:
Do you accept that reproductive isolation would allow different sets of mutations and accompanying physical changes to accumulate over time?
Sure it is possible. But if the DNA is the same to begin with they could end up with the same sets of mutations regardless of their location.
The possibility of this happening is so low that we might as well regard it as impossible.
-----
ICANT writes:
Bluejay writes:
Do you accept that the hominid skulls in that picture you've been talking about display physical changes that could be related to mutations?
Sure they could be related to mutations.
They could also be related to different beginnings of different creatures.
Sure, they could. But, given how broadly similar they are, and how well they seem to transition from one skull to the next, does it really seem reasonable to conclude that they are completely unrelated?
Also, none of them has a beginning that lines up with your timeline, so do you think it would help your argument much even if it were true?
-----
ICANT writes:
Bluejay writes:
Do you accept that this would be evolution?
I think I would call it the opposite of evolution as it seems that when enough time has passed everything becomes extinct. A fact that has accelerated since modern man appeared on Earth.
This is why I think your answers are dishonest. You didn't really answer the question: you just made a generic comment about your opinion about evolution, that includes some extraneous information that isn't really related to the topic.
Let me ask again: if the differences between the hominid skulls in that picture upthread can be traced to mutations, would you accept that these differences would represent evolution?

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by ICANT, posted 01-21-2011 3:22 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by ICANT, posted 01-22-2011 12:56 PM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024