Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Great Creationist Fossil Failure
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 1123 of 1163 (795822)
12-17-2016 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1121 by RAZD
12-16-2016 9:51 AM


Re: clades vs kinds
Hi RAZD.
RAZD writes:
So while Diportodontia is a different clade from Rodentia, and it is a member of the marsupial mammal clade and not the placental mammal clade they both are members of the mammal clade ... there IS a common ancestor population they evolved from, (and we can go back further) ... BUT while each have not evolved "out of their (Diportodontia, Rodentia) clades" they have arrived at a similar point through selection and mutations.
"There is a common ancestor they evolved from"
The problem is, can't the clade, can't the cladogram exist, WITHOUT this ancestor?
Have they found this ancestor? If so can you name it?
The problem is, a homoplasy is basically only, "not a homology" because it does not fit with the evolutionary story of divergence.
Think about it - two creatures identical but one marsupial and one placental, logically speaking, should falsify evolution.
So how do we logically falsify evolution? Heads it's evolutionary divergence. (homologies) Tails it's evolutionary convergence (homoplasies)
But what if the actual conclusion is that God as a Creator, simply does not obey any rules. What if for example, God wanted a marine-version of a tortoise simply because He liked the idea, and so He created a turtle?
With turtles I guess you could say evolution by coincidence has made them ever so slightly analogous.
The most amusing example of an analogous feature is the Ichthyosaur, especially when we hear Gould himself admit to the 1-in-a-billion odds, it seems, and that is the problem, the coincidence-list for evolution seems to be astronomical, some forty convergent types of eyeballs I heard from Dawkins.
"This sea-going reptile with terrestrial ancestors converged so strongly on fishes that it actually evolved a dorsal fin and tail in just the right place and with just the right hydrological design. The evolution of these forms was all the more remarkable because they evolved from nothingthe ancestral terrestrial reptile had no hump on its back or blade on its tail to act as a precursor - Gould.
(Oh look, it seems Gould has used the word, "hydrological", according to Dr Adequate I guess that means Gould was not a "real scientist", if we are to appreciate what Dr A said in message one of this thread.)
CONCLUSION: it seems to me "analogues" are just excuses for why divergence can't solve the problem. How can we scientifically test whether natural selection can converge and break odds that end up an astronomical figure?
How can we scientifically test? If we can't, that means we just have to believe evolution did it. Your two clades with the larger mammal clade, don't include the transitionals, so can't cladograms just be classifications without any evolution?
EXAMPLE: vehicles --> then two wheeled vehicles (motorcycles) and four wheeled, (cars).
Thus there is no requirement for any relatedness.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1121 by RAZD, posted 12-16-2016 9:51 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1124 by Modulous, posted 12-17-2016 7:16 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 1125 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-18-2016 2:13 AM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 1140 by RAZD, posted 12-18-2016 10:59 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 1143 by RAZD, posted 12-18-2016 12:31 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 1149 by Taq, posted 12-19-2016 10:40 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 1150 by RAZD, posted 12-19-2016 12:06 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 1153 by RAZD, posted 12-26-2016 12:51 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 1126 of 1163 (795826)
12-18-2016 6:40 AM
Reply to: Message 1125 by Dr Adequate
12-18-2016 2:13 AM


Re: clades vs kinds
Dr A writes:
I have noted your exceptionally poor reading comprehension before. At no point did I say that real scientists do not use the word hydrological.
You said;
So creationists also drag in a second mechanism, "hydrological sorting" (which real scientists usually call "hydraulic sorting")
I thought, "real scientists" use the term, "hydraulic sorting"? But Gould the non-creationist, used the term, "hydrological", so this is an example of a double-standard fallacy I have astutely spotted, so naming it "poor reading comprehension" I imagine even the evolutionists must see is a ridiculous use of epithets. This is like saying that because I can prove I am 6 foot 10 inches tall that I am, "a midget".
Obviously there is nothing wrong with my reading and everything wrong with your comment. Why not simply admit you made a mistake for once in your life, and didn't know what you were talking about.
Dr A. writes:
Well, you'd have to start by knowing what you were talking about.
You are so easy to refute because you only use bare-assertions. If I don't know what divergence is and what convergence is, you have to explain in debate, what I have specifically misunderstood, otherwise you just want to spread a stereotype that I can't possibly understand the issues of science as a creationist.
I understand that according to evolution, wings in birds, and bats would be examples of analogous structures but the pentadactyl limb would be examples of homologous structures. Can you please now explain where I have made an error, rather than spreading your usual propaganda that I don't have an inkling about anything?
You're going to have to use genuine intelligence if you want to defeat me in a debate, not bald assertions.
What do you mean by "forty convergent types of eyeballs"? N.B: you did not hear that from Dawkins.
Lol. No arrogance here from Dr.A. then. I guess it was Moses I learnt it from, by reading Genesis.
This is exactly what we would expect --- identical selection pressures produced analogy but not homology. For example, if you looked at the tail of an ichthyosaur instead of merely talking nonsense about the subject, you would see that its caudal vertebrae go into the lower lobe of its tail, unlike any fish.
The Ichthyosaur though homoplastic to a dolphin, had more of a barrel-like body with a whip-tail, the use of the vertebrae BY DESIGN made it a slow swimmer with the tail being more useful, from what I read. It seems highly reasonable that there would be support for the tail, because fish are not built the same. So you are arguing that evolution should give an ichthyosaur fish features and should not. Heads if it's homoplastic fish-features, evolution wins, tails if it's NOT fish features like the tail bone, evolution wins again, because evolution predicts both.
LOL!
Thus essentially you are reasoning in a circle. That some features are because of divergence, but the features are the prediction of divergence, which evidence it, but then the evidence becomes the prediction, pointing back to divergence, which points to the features, which points to divergence, which points to the features.
I can accept that if evolution were true there may be homologies, but it counts as falsification of evolutionary divergence if there are homologies you re-brand, "homoplasies". After all, a marsupial isn't in the same clade as a placental, so it's a matter of picking and choosing which type of evolution isn't it. If there are homoplasies that break evolution, you re-brand them convergent evolution. Funny how ANY and ALL evidence is expected from evolution.
You haven't answered my challenge which is a logical one. If we find ANY new creature, how do we falsify evolution? If we can call some features "unique" such as the pelican spider's head shape, or "homoplastic" or, "homologous", since it seems none of those things can falsify evolution then that covers heads, tails and the side of the coin.
"Mike, I win 100 dollars if I flip heads, tails or the side of the coin, now please try and win the game by flipping your coin".
Dr A writes:
Just because your conclusion is as nonsensical as your premises, that doesn't mean that it would follow from them.
"Nonsensical" is a question-begging-epithet.
JUST STATING I speak "nonsense" STATING, I know not what I say, all counts as the bare-assertion, begging-the-question fallacies.
Do the readers notice how I don't need to state things about Dr A but in every single post he posts in response to me he relies on PROPAGANDA "he knows not what he is talking about", and buz-words about mike, "nonsense", "poor reading comprehension".
I think by now anyone of reasonable intelligence can see that not only do I not speak nonsense nor not understand what I say, but I very overtly do understand.
I would prefer to discuss these things with RAZD because he is a genuine intellect in my opinion, because he does not use propaganda to attack me with.
All you have in your arsenal is prejudice against creationists.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1125 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-18-2016 2:13 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1127 by Modulous, posted 12-18-2016 6:52 AM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 1141 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-18-2016 12:24 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 1142 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-18-2016 12:26 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 1128 of 1163 (795828)
12-18-2016 7:00 AM


I think it MAY be time for the moderators, such as the very objective Adminemoose, to perhaps look at some of Dr A's posts towards me, he very, very consistently attacks me personally in every single post it seems, implying in every post without any exceptions, that I speak nonsense, cannot read, don't know anything, am a nitwit, and don't qualify to debate any matter.
Isn't one of the forum rules to avoid attacking the person constantly?
I accept I am repulsive to people because I am a creationist, by I myself have consistently REFRAINED from attacking the character of Dr A. He also posts these attacks as assertions, without providing reasoning or evidence for the charges against me. Fair enough if he actually could show some error I have made, for then I could try and learn from the error and move on, but he doesn't.
If RAZD and others I have spoken with such as modulous, and others in the past, can use exemplary manners, to the point where I derive pleasure just from reading their well crafted posts even if I don't fully agree with them, then why can't Dr A at least behave in a civilised way?
I am not saying, "ban him", but it would be nice if he could learn to behave in a mature way some time before his his 90th birthday.

Replies to this message:
 Message 1137 by Percy, posted 12-18-2016 8:57 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 1129 of 1163 (795829)
12-18-2016 7:13 AM
Reply to: Message 1127 by Modulous
12-18-2016 6:52 AM


Re: clades vs kinds
Modulous, in this link, the evolutionists respond by use of the term, "hydrological sorting", meaning they permit the term. So even if Gould didn't use the term, the same, logically all I have to do is show that evolutionists DO use the term in the same way, and your point becomes a MOOT point.
The fact is, evolutionists have used the same term. It's hair-splitting also, the point is "hydrological" is a perfectly usable term, I see no reason to use it as a lame attempt at a No-True-Scotsman-fallacy.
CH561.2: Hydrologic sorting
Not even remotely astute, and your lack of epistemic humility backfires yet again.
The term, "again", is a question-begging-epithet, because it IMPLIES it happens, "often"
And it wasn't a lack of humility. Humility is the low view/value of one's importance, not LIES. It would be LIES and false humility to say, "I am not astute" or to hide a statement of fact. "astute" just means to accurately assess, which I don't think gives me great and unique importance or immense genius but I think it does give me pleasure against outspoken propaganda trolls, if I can respond knowing I have that advantage over them, for it then reveals that their great, swelling boasts against creationists, are unfounded such as the opening message which is riddled with fallacious content.
Edited by mike the wiz, : spelling errors again guys, fast typing, I PROMISE I won't use the term, "unpresidented".
Edited by mike the wiz, : and you only said, "epistemic" to sound smart, as you have a tendency towards pomp. Is that humble? Yeah - see how I knew that? "SMOKIN!!!" - Jim Carrey - The Mask.
"you're good kid, but as long as I'm around you'll always be second best, see?" - Jim Carrey - The Mask. (mikey mischief complete)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1127 by Modulous, posted 12-18-2016 6:52 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1130 by Modulous, posted 12-18-2016 7:27 AM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 1134 by JonF, posted 12-18-2016 8:34 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 1131 of 1163 (795834)
12-18-2016 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 1130 by Modulous
12-18-2016 7:27 AM


Re: clades vs kinds
Well I don't know why I have wound you up so much. You do seem to have spent all your energy on debating mike, rather than showing how I can falsify evolution if it predicts all of the facts.
There's one thing you must understand about mike, and some here probably do understand it. "Mischief" is mike's middle name. That means 95% of my boastings are designed to wind people up, or at least, this is my sense-of-humour but a heavy dosage of smilies is meant to indicate playfulness.
But when I said I, "astutely" spotted, perhaps that was a moment of slight boasting so as to rub Dr A's nose in it. So I apologise for that one as I apologised to Paul K when I thought he was correct that I had a moment of boast. In that moment perhaps I was guilty.
But put yourself in my shoes and read message one.
Don't forget I am the minority and from my perspective Dr A in message one is simply being derogatory towards creation scientists with this focus on semantics pertaining the the old hydrologicalism.
What difference does it really make? Dr A believes completely, that only evolutionists are scientists, and only evolutionists have a functional brain and only evolutionists have genuine knowledge but my experience of creation scientists is the opposite. Try reading the book by Dr Sarfati; "The Greatest Hoax on earth" if you think creation scientists are all dumb heads that haven't studied.
Modulous writes:
Google 'epistemic humility' for fuck's sake. You need to learn it desperately.
You shouldn't play with sharp objects (mike being the sharp object) - Patrick Swayze - Steel Dawn.
Are you cut? You sound it. "I'm gonna be prayin' for ya.." - Eddie Murphy's priest - Coming To America.
But when we emote we usually are the cause of our own cut. Why do you feel the need to say all these things to me? My words aren't designed to irritate you, I suggest you have irritated yourself.
You have deep issues against super-mike, I suggest you take Patrick Swayze's advice;
"I told you not to play with sharp objects!" Swayze - Steel Dawn.
(oh come one now. SOMEONE please tell me they can perceive mischief, are you guys dried up totally? Where's your sense of mikey fun?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1130 by Modulous, posted 12-18-2016 7:27 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1132 by Modulous, posted 12-18-2016 8:17 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 1135 of 1163 (795840)
12-18-2016 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 1132 by Modulous
12-18-2016 8:17 AM


Re: clades vs kinds
Modulous writes:
The Theory of Evolution doesn't necessarily 'predict' all the specific facts. It can explain most of them in a parsimonious fashion.
That amuses me as an assertion, which is all it is.
Is it parsimonious to explain the general stasis of forms by invoking millions on non-existent transitional species?
Or is it more parsimonious to explain designer-necessity as a real life problem for intelligently designed things, WITHOUT invoking millions of entities?
Are you sure you understand what the term, "parsimonious", means? (google: The principle of parsimony)
For example it can be shown that with designs we all agree are designed, such as vehicles, there are certain types of design which form a hierarchy as a cladogram.
For example, cars, planes and bicycles, all require braking-mechanisms and wheels. This means we have 100% KNOWLEDGE/PROOF that similar features in very different designs, can AND ARE used by designers, even the same designers. Dyson will use motors in his vacuums but he may also use motors in a different appliance.
So if I have a bat with echolocation, and an oil bird with echolocation and a whale with echolocation, is it there by evolution simply by the assertion it was converged upon by evolution, or is the feature there because of design-necessity, which also explains why all of the intermediate forms for oil birds, bats, and whales, are conspicuously absent.
(don't confuse conspicuous absence with argumentum ad ignorantiam, or you're falling right into a mikey-trap.)
That's all I have to say for now at EvC forum. I precisely PLAN my measure of activity so as it favours my position rather than yours. If I continue to let people indulge themselves in personal attacks on mikey, very soon it will turn into a neurotic agreement about several things about the person, "mike". This can be called, "rankism" (google it). it tends to happen when one minority mikey soldier is pissing against the wind of a thousand evo-soldiers.
It would not be very clever to FEED those tactics like I see so many creationists do. Sometimes you have to give the beast enough food for him to live, but not enough for him to devour you, there is a particular area between him eating you alive and having him on a chain to play with at your disposal.
Never mind my dear Watson, mikey- Bond shall return in ......Mikey Bond, evo-crusher sequel number 27
"Merry Christmas you filthy animal" - Mobster guy - Home Alone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1132 by Modulous, posted 12-18-2016 8:17 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1138 by Modulous, posted 12-18-2016 9:03 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 1144 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-18-2016 12:41 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 1145 by NoNukes, posted 12-18-2016 5:24 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 1136 of 1163 (795841)
12-18-2016 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1133 by Percy
12-18-2016 8:30 AM


Re: clades vs kinds
Strawman fallacy Percy. I have never argued that I don't understand the difference between X and P. Thus you are trying to DIVERT the attention to what "mike does or does not understand" which is a fallacy-of-diversion. I have not even discussed what hydro-sorting is or is not, nor do I believe creationists make the claim that it is responsible for the majority of sorting in the fossils, of which I have read the sorting diminishes as we find more species out-of-place.
My specific complaint was that Dr A said "hydrological sorting" was referred to by real scientists as, "hydraulic" but Gould and other evolutionists online, seem to also use the term, "hydrological", meaning if your argument is that this means creationists aren't real scientists then your argument is predicated on that term being a solely creationist term.
What "we are truly saying" is not up for debate, what a particular member said, specifically, IS.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1133 by Percy, posted 12-18-2016 8:30 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1139 by Percy, posted 12-18-2016 9:47 AM mike the wiz has 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