Summations Only

There's an old quote that even I use on one of my pages. I think it was attributed to Mark Twain, but also to Disraeli. There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.However, it is at that point that ignorance intercedes. Now in that context, statistics refers to the individual data points individually. In order to make any sense of those individual data points, you need to perform statistical analysis.Dredge, how much of statistical analysis do you understand? Percy was talking about statistical analysis. Do you have any knowledge at all about the mathematics involved? Or, like everything else you have pontificated about, are you yet again abysmally ignorant?

On the contrary, "all of the fossils we have" is a sample size of 100%. All of the fossils we have point to the same conclusions, and they're also the same conclusions pointed to by other completely independent areas such as DNA, dating methods, etc.And even if the Green Party candidate gets 80% of those 0.033 % of the votes, we can safely predict that he isn't going to be President - because of the other evidence.

Nonsense. Your Darwinist rhetoric and sophistry don't fool me. Common descent is a conclusion, based on certain scientific facts. It is those facts that are useful to applied biology, not said conclusion. Perhaps you are too brainwashed or too deluded to recognise the difference.The truth is, the conclusion of common ancestry is a scientific irrelevance and is utterly useless in any practical sense. Therefore, contrary to your claim, the concept of common descent has contributed nothing to the advancement of science. It is for this reason that someone who completely rejects common descent (a creationist Christian, for example) can be just as competent in the field of applied biology as someone who believes that all life on earth evolved from microbes. Applied biology relies on facts and reality, not useless tales from ancient history. It seems to me that you can't tell the difference between evidence and an assumption (delusion tends to have this effect on the mind). All you have is an assumption - that a piece of a reptile's jawbone evolved into the bones of a mammal's inner ear. But you can't demonstrate that any piece of any jawbone has ever evolved into the bones of any inner ear - ever. Since when do assumptions add up to "evidence"?This isn't science, it's just story-telling.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

I think you must be confusing me with someone else. Catholicism is not a false religion.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Okay,
- anagenesis is lineal change within a species and therefore has nothing to do with macroevolutionary changes.
- cladogenesis is speciation. I fail to see how Green Warblers speciating into more Green Warblers is evidence that they are on there way to evolving into eagles or pelicans or whatever. Green Warblers speciating into more Green Warblers will form a nested hierarchy, no doubt, but only of Green Warblers.So your answer doesn't help me understand what is "happening all around us" that provides evidence of macroevolution. None of which depends one iota on accepting the conclusion of common descent.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

No one really cares whether or not you understand but you do provide a handy foil that allows us to address those who might be reading this and other threads.We have the fossils. We win.We have reality. We win.We have the Theory that explains the fact of evolution. We win.It really is that simple.We have and you do not have.Edited by jar, : fix sub-title

You seem to have missed the bit where we have the fossils, and win.

Nope. You were positively ID'd. Why are you dragging Catholicism into this? I didn't say anything about Catholicism, but rather I was talking about your false religion: creationism based on "creation science". The one for which you must keep yourself willfully ignorant. The one which has turned you into a mindless troll. The one that leads you to lie. The one which, according to Christian doctrine, has you serving Satan.You are wicked fruit and what your religion has done to you is wicked fruit. That makes your religion wicked and false. But then that's what Jesus says and when have creationists and fundamentalists ever paid attention to what Jesus said?

Really? We've already gone over that and you still have absolutely no clue? Why do you insist on being such an idiot?Marcus Lycus (played on film by Phil Silvers) had your number:

quote:

---

Lycus: If I've told you once, I've told you a hundred times; do not fan the girls when they're wet! But you'll never learn, you'll be a eunuch all your life.

---

Microevolution over many generations.It appears we can agree on that.ALL evolution occurs "within a species" ... there are no other mechanisms than the processes of evolution "within a species" -- so this should be no surprise to anyone knowledgeable about evolution. Microevolution in reproductively isolated populations, each population undergoing anagenesis, each one accumulating different changes from the other/s (and the parent population), until they are different species. Each population is evolving via lineal change within a species, and the results for each branch viewed alone would look identical to anagenesis.It is only because there are multiple lineages from a common ancestor that we can see differences between the populations accumulating until they are different species, and yes, this IS speciation.It appears we can agree on that. And dogs will always be dogs, but hey, kudos on seeing how nested hierarchies form, and recognizing that all descendants within a nested hierarchy will always be descendants of the original parent population. The names\labels may change, but those are just arbitrary designations used by humans to improve communication, nature doesn't care how we label things.First there is a single species population of greenish warblers. Then it becomes a species population of greenish warblers with relatively isolated population with reduce gene flow, resulting in multiple (5) varieties of greenish warbler. Then the isolation increases and you end up with a genus of greenish warblers rather than just a species (the name is changing), now with several species as the varieties become different species (via speciation). Then each of these new species could then undergo the same division into varieties that over time become new species, and they each become a genus and original "greenish warbler" designation becomes a family (again the name\label is changing).The names may change, but those are just arbitrary designations used by humans to improve communication, nature doesn't care how we name or label things. Perhaps the problem is with the term "macroevolution" and your understanding of it's meaning versus the one used in science.Care to give us your definition of macroevolution so that we can talk about it the same way? What is macroevolution?In science macroevolution is defined as anagenesis plus cladogenesis, which you seem to agree occurs around us. What else do you expect to occur?Let us know and we can proceed with this latest teachable moment bought to us by Dredge.Enjoy

You can't prove that a piece of a reptile's jaw bone evolved into the inner ear bones of a mammal - you can't even prove that such a thing is possible. So all you have is a story based on endless assumptions and blind faith. Only in the fake science of evolution do assumptions and blind faith carry the same weight as empirical evidence.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

I only have one religion - Catholicism. Catholics who accept evolution are not practising true Catholicism.

Don't mention the Green Party ever again; they're demonic.

Okay. It's been a very long time since I studied statistics but it seems weird to me that these predictions can be made without knowing the totlal size of the electorate. My fragile, egg-shell mind has a great of trouble dealing with that. Someone somewhere better be able to provide a mathematical proof for such a freaky fact, otherwise there's going to be hell to pay.Anyhow, I would imagine a statistical analysis of fossils would be much more complicated and prone to uncertainties than the statistical analysis of an election.

I have always been puzzled by the fact that a carpenter thought of good and bad trees only in terms of the fruit they produce. Edited by Astrophile, : I forgot to use the quote function.