|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,918 Year: 4,175/9,624 Month: 1,046/974 Week: 5/368 Day: 5/11 Hour: 0/2 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Your false boasting aside, you could argue that we’re too kind. But I don’t think that’s really something you should complain about.
quote: Every time you post something really silly I could recognise it in the Humor thread. There have been a few occasions when I’ve nearly done that.
quote: I agree that expecting you to recognise good points against your arguments - rather than ignoring them or even explicitly denying that they were ever made - is overly optimistic.
quote: Maybe you should consider the possibility that your posts are not nearly as good as you think. But sure go post on YEC sites. You can be sure that any deviation from the site orthodoxy will be ruthlessly suppressed. Even yours.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Because it isn’t true.
quote: Which basically says that you don’t understand the idea of studying something in detail to understand it. While simply agreeing with your opinions might be simpler it leads to believing things that really are ludicrous as you demonstrate on a near-daily basis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
So the paradigm problem is that geologists see what is there, not what you want them to see. And they don’t try to force everything into preconceived ideas about a Young Earth and a worldwide Flood.
That seems a pretty clear indication of who has the problem, and who has it all wrong
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: The presence of evaporites, for instance, is observation. The presence of features like the monadnocks of Shinumo quartzite and the valleys in the Redwall is observation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: No. They don’t. If you haven’t realised that by now you shouldn’t be accusing others of paradigm blindness. That is WHY science abandoned YEC ideas.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: You mean that you are still trying to pass off things that the Flood couldn’t have done as evidence of the Flood. Just because you decide that the Flood must have done something - an that only because you csn’t accept that YEC is a ridiculous falsehood - doesn’t make it evidence of the Flood.
quote: You mean you’ll stop posting ridiculous falsehoods because we aren’t crazy enough to believe them. Please! I wish you would.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: You see, you haven’t learned enough geology. There is no worldwide the geological column. We’ve covered that. The strata covering large areas have various causes. Large scale transgressions slowly covering the land. Epeiric seas. Large deserts. But what have you got? The strata aren’t anything we would expect a Flood to deposit. There’s plenty of evidence in them against the idea. Your sole response is that we can’t know what the Flood would do - when you are even willing to acknowledge that the evidence exists. But that response rules out any sound basis for expecting the Flood to do anything in particular. You can’t have it both ways. And if you really cared about the quality of your arguments you wouldn’t try.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: It isn’t. The geological column is an abstraction, it isn’t found anywhere.
quote: The fact that there are - even now - regions of sea that once were land (and thanks to global warming there will be more) rather rules out any strict distinction between land and sea.
quote: And yet you have run away from backing up similar claims very recently. I doubt that you will even try this time.
quote: In fact we do have the structure and composition of the rocks for a start. But then you never bothered to learn enough geology to know that. An example in the first article. And note that recognising these particular former deltas is useful in oil and gas exploration.
quote: You say that but you can’t back it up. We can. That is why you are the one who has to ignore real evidence while offering fake evidence.
quote: Perhaps you would - finally - like to explain why you believe that life is impossible in areas of net deposition. Given that there is life in present day regions of deposition - even deserts. River deltas are even known for the amount of life they can support. Given this you shouldn’t be surprised that nobody believes you. Really, I find it hard to imagine that even you believe it. You certainly haven’t given any real reason. And that shows up your last paragraph as the travesty it is, Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: It does seem obvious to me that if there are creatures currently living in an environment, then it is possible that creatures in the past lived in similar environments. I don’t see anything controversial in that. It also seems to me that someone with a poor understanding of trilobite diversity and with no knowledge of the genetics (because nobody really does) is in no position to say how long it should take the observed diversity to appear. And when they cite a figure that would seem to require intentional breeding programs I don’t see why I should take it seriously at all. I don’t see anything controversial in that either. And given that that covers two of your recent arguments - and we know we can extend it to more - I don’t think your accusations hold water at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: And I think that you are just engaging in your usual habit of blaming others for your own faults.
quote: That is your assumption. We don’t agree. That is not a lack of thought on our part, that’s you just rejecting our view on the matter out of hand.
quote: Your arrogant bluster is just a foolish bullying tactic. Too bad that’s all you’ve got.
quote: Which is just more bluster.
quote: Breeding programs in fact speed up the process as should be fairly obvious. Selective breeding is far more controlled than nature. Funny how you miss the obvious. You will note that in Darwin’s examples selective breeding produced far more varied phenotypes than are known in the wild populations.
quote: I don’t think that misrepresention can be considered fair, and yes ignoring the differences between strong selective breeding and natural,selection is unfair. Darwin never did that. He accepted that natural selection was far slower.
quote: Which would still lead to you assuming that extreme and unlikely conditions were the only possibility, and assuming that mutations played no role. Neither assumption is obviously true, and the first should be obviously questionable even to you.
quote: I will note that this is a rare phenomenon and nobody knows for sure how it happened. It still might be an environmental response, in part or whole. And yet you want us to believe that similar changes happened in hundreds or thousands of trilobite groups adding up to much more extensive change. And not as a possibility, but as a near certainty. That is obviously wrong. Which I suppose explains why you resort to bluster
quote: I will just note that we have arguments and evidence which you are not addressing. Certainly our position on the role of mutations is defensible, which is more than can be said for your insistence that the trilobite diversification could plausibly occur in a few hundred years (and let me note you try to use that claim as evidence for your position!)
quote: Which is obviously a simple case of assuming your paradigm. That is a serious weakness in your argument.
quote: And yet evidence and reason are on my side, while you have only arrogance and bluster.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: So you are claiming that the basis for your conclusion can’t be an assumption because your say that your position is a reasonable conclusion from the facts. Which is just a rather convoluted way of asserting that your assumption is a fact. Except it isn’t. It’s an assumption. And the fact that you are arguing by assertion rather than supporting your opinion does nothing to change that. At best all you are doing is confusing your opinion with the facts. Which goes a long way to explain why your arguments are unconvincing.
quote: Except that you are wrong. Lack of erosion and sharp contacts indicate pretty much continuous deposition, not necessarily fast deposition. Moreover the presence of trace fossils, such as footprints, which belong on the surface indicate that there was a surface there. And there are erosional surfaces, too, some of them quite deeply eroded.
quote: The facts do not show that even us amateurs here are wrong about everything, let alone the scientists. They do show that you are very frequently wrong. You want us to see you as Lord, but Liar or Lunatic are the only viable options. Quite likely both.
quote: Apart from the fact that selective pressures are very, very rarely as strong.
quote: Since no species has ever been produced by selective breeding - and there is a rather obvious theoretical problem in it - that isn’t something you know to be true. Even worse, recessive traits are slow to be selected (they CAN’T be selected before they appear). A new dominant trait would require a mutation, but could be selected rather quicker. An environmental response would be much, much faster and that’s a major reason for suspecting that it is at least part of the Pod Mrcau story. But nobody knows.
quote: Which it doesn’t do. Artificial selection hasn’t produced a new species, and its results aren’t matched in nature. Wolves are still wolves. Stock Doves are still Stock Doves.
quote: Except that you are using the timescale for selective breeding as an indication of the expected timescale in nature. Which Darwin didn’t do. Because it is obviously wrong. It’s not unfair to point that out. And environmental pressures that strong are rare and likely to be lethal. Your argument presumes that such strong pressures are the norm.
quote: To the best of my knowledge neither the cheetah nor the elephant seal have phenotypes significantly different from their ancestors from before the bottleneck. And you have never produced any evidence to the contrary. And that is not that surprising since bottlenecks are generally not selective.
quote: No. The problem is that your argument is obviously very, very bad.
quote: In other words you forgot that your controlled conditions work much faster than ordinary selection. Geographic isolation does not automatically produce strong selection, either. If you need (at a minimum) hundreds of groups to simultaneously become geographically isolated, for all of them to experience implausibly strong selection - and survive, and all of them to break out of their isolation and flourish in a few hundred years then you haven’t got a scenario that is at all likely.
quote: It was surprising because evolution that rapid is rare. That’s why you have only the one example - and we don’t even know that that is the result of evolution. Introduced species on islands are not nearly so rare since human took up sea travel. You would think that you would have more examples if simply isolating a small population were all that was required.
quote: The ToE timeframe for a speciation event can be about a thousand years. That’s not so slow. And I will note that fast evolution would obviously be easier to see, and you haven’t got many examples - and none of speciation.
quote: Except that you have ‘t got much of a case for that. You certainly don’t have a case that it is the whole story with the trilobites. And I will note that the relative rarity of beneficial mutations is one of the factors responsible for the slower rate of evolutionary change over the long term. And you don’t have any known examples of long term change based solely on genetic potential at all. Indeed it is a common YEC argument that the limits of variation are quickly reached. And let me repeat the important point. Your whole argument about trilobite diversification assumes that you are right. When all you have is a very weak case - and that is all you do have - any argument that relies on it is automatically weak. For the purposes of this discussion I don’t need to prove you wrong, just show that your case isn’t strong enough to be taken for granted.
quote: Dogs don’t have nearly the variation in relative size, nor much variation in eye structure at all, or the range of ornamentation so I really disagree that dogs come that close. But let me point out that you claimed that trilobite evolution was obviously microevolution which is based on assuming your paradigm - and if you are wrong about that your ideas about the timescale DO go out the window. It’s not just an aside, it’s a necessary assumption.
quote: You have no evidence regarding the trilobite genome at all. Your scenario assumes unlikely events that are not evidenced. You assume that genetic bottlenecks produce significant phenotypic change without even checking that your supposed examples DID experience significant phenotypic change because of the bottlenecks. And that’s not even a complete listing of the issues in this post. Does that really look like you have evidence or reason on your side ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: You certainly haven’t given any arguements of evidence that are extremely telling in support of your idea. And I don’t see that pointing out contrary evidence can be considered to be changing the subject.
quote: Burrows are rather good evidence that things were living there. And of course the surface wasn’t lithified when they were living there.Nests, with young in them are even better evidence that the dinosaurs were living there. quote: Paradigm blindness strikes again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: And stopping to make nests, lay eggs and for the young to hatch ? That doesn’t sound very likely.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: An interesting ad hoc answer, but it is just ad hoc. How did the nest manage to survive the initial stages of the Flood ? Why, other than the assumption that the Flood Did It should we prefer the simpler and far better evidenced idea that the dinosaurs were living there ?
quote: Interesting that you think that real evidence is just a distraction. But then the evidence is so solidly against you it’s hardly surprising.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Like when you are caught in an obvious lie. Message 2238 You can call that stupid and unfair all you want. But that’s just more lies. If you don’t like getting caught telling obvious lies then don’t tell obvious lies.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024