Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8749 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-26-2017 4:56 PM
121 online now:
dwise1, frako, kjsimons, PaulK (4 members, 117 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Roshankumar1234
Post Volume:
Total: 809,070 Year: 13,676/21,208 Month: 3,158/3,605 Week: 500/933 Day: 38/51 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1011
12
131415Next
Author Topic:   No Witnesses
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12688
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


(2)
Message 166 of 215 (660662)
04-28-2012 6:45 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by Chuck77
04-28-2012 4:32 AM


Taken from Message 549 for discussion.

quote:

If I have insulted anyone in that thread like the way I am being insulted whatever penalty is given out to the members doing it to me i'll accept the same.

I found the comment Dr Adequate responded to far nastier - and insulting - than the comment made by Dr. Adequate, who merely suggests that your argument would look silly in a courtroom.


Establishing "facts" to fit the theory maybe. If you cannot provide examples of micro-evolution happening with evidence of witnesses then how is it factual? Or is it just assumed and speculated?

If you merely have questions about the evidence then why is the first sentence in the quote even needed ? Leave out the insinuations and the hostility and then you might be able to complain about being mistreated.

Even leaving the exaggerations of CSI behind us, it is true, is it not that forensic evidence - such as ballistic markings, fibres, fingerprints and DNA matching are given considerable weight in the judicial system ? Do you suggest that this is a fraud designed to support the prosecution ? If you do not then you not only concede Dr. Adequate's point, you were also being premature in your own comments.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Chuck77, posted 04-28-2012 4:32 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5765
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.5


(1)
Message 167 of 215 (660666)
04-28-2012 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by Chuck77
04-28-2012 4:32 AM


Other than the genetics why do you think chimps/apes and humans should be classified together?

Well I guess this one comment just states it all doesn't it.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Chuck77, posted 04-28-2012 4:32 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

    
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2301
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(1)
Message 168 of 215 (660667)
04-28-2012 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by Chuck77
04-28-2012 4:32 AM


Hi Chuck,

Yeah, I get that. And some interpret a common ancestor.

By "some", you seem to mean 99.99% of professional biologists.

We Creationists interpret a common designer.

That is hardly equivalent to the weight that one gives to the opinions of 99.99% of the world's biologists. Besides, the evidence does not fit a designer, unless your designer is a liar who goes around making things look as though they evolved when in fact they did not.

So then macro-evolution cannot be witnessed the way the ToE describes then?

You are moving the goalposts. What was being discussed was the transition from land to water for various species of mammal.

Macro-evolution can be and has been observed.

A specific event that took place thirty million years ago cannot be observed by a living human witness.

If you are asking for human witnesses to an event that took place before there were any humans, you are being unreasonable.

If you cannot provide examples of micro-evolution happening with evidence of witnesses then how is it factual?

What on earth made you think that we can't produce evidence of micro-evolution? We can. In fact, any reasonably well equipped high school biology lab could provide this. This kind of evidence is so ubiquitous that very few creationists dare dispute micro-evolution.

Modulous, just go find a chimp that can write a book, fly to the moon, etc etc etc...

Chuck, cats don't write books either. To compare the interrelatedness of humans and chimps with that of cats you need a system that can be applied to both the "chimps and humans" clade and the cat clade. Then you could make a fair comparison.

You think us and the chimps (other than genetics created by a common designer) are similiar in what way that you think we should be classified together?

In the way that they actually are classified together; using a mixture of morphology, ethology and genetics.

Not really. I can witness how chimps act and how humans act. It's not a "gut instinct". It's reality. My conclusion is that chimps/apes should be classified seperatly than humans.

And they are; at the species level. No-one is claiming that chimps and humans aren't different. They are. But they are also very similar.

Other than the genetics why do you think chimps/apes and humans should be classified together?

Morphology. Can you name any creature that is more morphologically similar to humans than a chimp or bonobo is?

Mutate and Survive


This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Chuck77, posted 04-28-2012 4:32 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

    
Panda
Member (Idle past 1124 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 169 of 215 (660688)
04-28-2012 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by Chuck77
04-28-2012 4:32 AM


Chuck77 writes:

Other than the genetics why do you think chimps/apes and humans should be classified together?


This makes as much sense to evolutionists as asking:
"Other than those 2 people having the same parents, why do you think that those 2 people are siblings?"

Certainly, there are other reasons to think that 2 people are brothers/sisters. e.g. They grew up together in the same house.
But to exclude that key piece of information (that they have the same parents) when trying to identify if they are siblings is completely nonsensical.

So, in regards to your question: "Other than the genetics why do you think chimps/apes and humans should be classified together?"
Certainly, there are other reasons to think that chimps and humans are closely related. e.g. physical similarities.
But to exclude that key piece of information (that chimps and humans are genetically related) when trying to identify if they should be classified together is completely nonsensical.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Chuck77, posted 04-28-2012 4:32 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7407
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 170 of 215 (660692)
04-28-2012 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Chuck77
04-28-2012 4:32 AM


Yeah, I get that. And some interpret a common ancestor. We Creationists interpret a common designer. Not a random process that is non-intelligently non-directed.

Evoution is not non-directed. It's very much directed. By natural selection. It is definitely not a 'random process'.

Ok. So then macro-evolution cannot be witnessed the way the ToE describes then?

Actually, the mechanisms within ToE have been witnessed. What has not been witnessed is the change in populations which exceeds the existence of humans.

Establishing "facts" to fit the theory maybe. If you cannot provide examples of micro-evolution happening with evidence of witnesses then how is it factual? Or is it just assumed and speculated?

I can provide evidence of micro-evolution happening with witnesses, if you'd like. It is not assumed, and as I previously said calling it speculation is a highly unfair characterisation.

But my entire point was that something can be factual without there being witnesses.

Modulous, just go find a chimp that can write a book, fly to the moon, etc etc etc...

As I thought you have performed little to no analysis to establish your position and are going on nothing better than 'gut instinct'.

When was the last time you saw a domestic housecat work in a pack to kill a Wildebeest?

You think us and the chimps (other than genetics created by a common designer) are similiar in what way that you think we should be classified together?

We're both great apes, which implies many similarities both morphologically, behaviourally, and genetically.

Not really. I can witness how chimps act and how humans act. It's not a "gut instinct". It's reality. My conclusion is that chimps/apes should be classified seperatly than humans.

They are classified separately.

Your claim is that the various felines are more closely related to one another than Chimps and Humans are. That's what you need to provide evidence for. I know that humans and chimps are different, but are they more different from one another than lions and domestic cats as you claimed.

Other than the genetics why do you think chimps/apes and humans should be classified together?

Sure, they are physically very similar too.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Chuck77, posted 04-28-2012 4:32 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

    
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7407
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 171 of 215 (660694)
04-28-2012 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Rrhain
04-27-2012 9:08 PM


Why are we beholden to people who don't understand what the term means?

I'm not suggesting we should be 'beholden' to anyone. I'm just saying we should address what a person means by what they say.

And since we know that they don't know what they're talking about, why should we kowtow to them?

To stress this again: I am not suggesting any kowtowing take place. I'm just saying that when a creationist says 'macroevolution has not been observed' you are definitely not addressing their concerns by pointing out observed instances of speciation.

Granted, what they mean may be incoherent or malleable, but we can still address them in a more meaningful manner than that.

To them, "macroevolution" functionally means "evolutionary processes that I don't think have ever been seen." That's not a definition. That's a defensive stance. It's an argument out of ignorance. After all, look at how the conversation goes. The original claim is that we've never seen a new species arise. We then show them that no, we have seen speciation such as in fruit flies. Their response is, "Yeah, but it's still a fly!"

I don't dispute that such things occur. There are good ways to address what they are saying without using the ploy of saying that 'technically speciation is macroevolution, so there'.

One can say, there is a certain degree of biological change that takes place out of sight of animals capable of writing. Therefore it was not witnessed. However, it did leave evidence behind that has been witnessed.

They don't get to be the arbiters of what "macroevolution" is. If they use it wrong, we will happily point it out, but we do not allow them to continue in their erroneous vein.

Personally, I find debating my opponents position is more rewarding than arguing about the semantics. By all means, point out that they are using technical language incorrectly. But then you should go about trying to understand what they are trying to argue, and then address that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Rrhain, posted 04-27-2012 9:08 PM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Rrhain, posted 04-28-2012 3:23 PM Modulous has responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6096
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 172 of 215 (660696)
04-28-2012 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Modulous
04-28-2012 1:15 PM


Modulous responds to me:

quote:
I'm not suggesting we should be 'beholden' to anyone. I'm just saying we should address what a person means by what they say.

And when they're wrong? And when they change definitions in the middle of their argument?

quote:
I'm just saying that when a creationist says 'macroevolution has not been observed' you are definitely not addressing their concerns by pointing out observed instances of speciation.

Except we are. Take a look in this very thread! You do read the threads you post to, don't you?

Message 154:

Chuck77 writes:

Evolution within species particularly land mammals like dog, fox, cat, horse ect depending on the real seperation of the species/kinds does happen.

He's talking about speciation here. "Evolution within species." Does that mean something else?

But then, just like we expect from creationists, he changes his definition:

To what extent I don't think is known exactly but the land to water, water to land mammal transition I believe is all speculation including a common ancestor for chimp and man. The cat to fox for example you still see similar traits that show evolution could have occurred. Chimp and man there is to much seperation and it doesn't fit with the other groupings as neatly as the canine or feline classification. It's the odd ball out IMO as well as land to water and water to land mammals.

Suddenly we're talking about changes much higher up the taxonomic tree than species. And on top of that, we've got a huge display of ignorance on exactly what he taxonomic organization is: Cat to fox is closer than chimp to human?

This is exactly what I have been describing. The functional definition of "macroevolution" for a creationist is, "Evolutionary processes I don't think have ever been seen." They realize that they can't just come out and say that no evolutionary changes of any kind ever happen, but they still cling to the idea that there is some limit that prevents it from progressing any further.

quote:
There are good ways to address what they are saying without using the ploy of saying that 'technically speciation is macroevolution, so there'.

Who said anything about "technically"? It's their own definition. Did you not read Chuck's post? He specifically points out that the "limit" of evolution is speciation.

So how is using his own words to show him exactly what it is that he claims has never happened "technically"?

quote:
Personally, I find debating my opponents position is more rewarding than arguing about the semantics.

Then why would you ever debate with a creationist? That's all they have.

quote:
But then you should go about trying to understand what they are trying to argue, and then address that.

What makes you think that hasn't happened?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Modulous, posted 04-28-2012 1:15 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Modulous, posted 04-28-2012 3:43 PM Rrhain has responded

    
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7407
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 173 of 215 (660699)
04-28-2012 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Rrhain
04-28-2012 3:23 PM


And when they're wrong? And when they change definitions in the middle of their argument?

Call them out on it, obviously.

Except we are. Take a look in this very thread! You do read the threads you post to, don't you?

I'm not responding to the thread, I'm responding to a particular position of yours. You said 'We have seen macroevolution happen right in front of our eyes'. We might have seen macroevolution technically, but we haven't seen what many creationists are meaning when they raise the objection.

Who said anything about "technically"? It's their own definition. Did you not read Chuck's post? He specifically points out that the "limit" of evolution is speciation.

If a creationist wants to claim that speciation does not occur, then of course we should correct them. I'm not saying that such creationists don't exist.

I'm just saying, that generally, when creationists say 'macroevolution' they are talking about a degree of change that occurs over periods of time that prohibit observation.

Then why would you ever debate with a creationist? That's all they have.

I disagree. And I swing the question back at you, if the argument is all word games, why bother participating? If we all agree on the pragmatics but we're bickering over correct terms I see no value in the debate at all.

ut then you should go about trying to understand what they are trying to argue, and then address that.
What makes you think that hasn't happened?

I'm not saying that hasn't happened. I am just responding to your position that we should just point at speciation, show that we have observed it, and that ends the discussion regarding whether what creationists are talking about has ever been observed. Sometimes it has, but not always.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Rrhain, posted 04-28-2012 3:23 PM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Rrhain, posted 04-29-2012 2:05 AM Modulous has responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6096
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 174 of 215 (660735)
04-29-2012 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by Modulous
04-28-2012 3:43 PM


Modulous responds to me:

quote:
I'm not responding to the thread, I'm responding to a particular position of yours.

Can we please stop playing dumb. You're trying to play the argument from ignorance. I point out a common tactic among the creationists, one which happens right in front of your face, and you stick your fingers in your ear and pretend it didn't happen.

quote:
We might have seen macroevolution technically

No, not "technically." We saw precisely what it is that creationists claim has never happened: New species showing up.

A poster on your own board just made that very claim.

And here you are pretending it didn't happen. You're exactly the same sort of fool as Chuck77: Claim something never happens and then when shown exactly what it was you insisted has never happened, pretend you were actually arguing something else.

When creationists say "macroevolution," they start off meaning "speciation." It's only when we show them speciation that they start wandering afield.

quote:
If a creationist wants to claim that speciation does not occur, then of course we should correct them.

You mean like Chuck77 did just now?

quote:
I'm not saying that such creationists don't exist.

Yes, you are. You're playing dumb so that you can pretend that you were actually arguing a different point. You're moving the goalposts, Modulous.

Can we please stop playing dumb?

quote:
I'm just saying, that generally, when creationists say 'macroevolution' they are talking about a degree of change that occurs over periods of time that prohibit observation.

No, they're not. Didn't you read this thread? If you aren't going to be bothered to actually pay attention to the things that happen right in front of you, what on earth makes you think that you are in any position to have anything of value to say?

This is standard behaviour from you, Modulous: Ignore everything and play dumb.

quote:
And I swing the question back at you, if the argument is all word games, why bother participating?

Because it isn't. Words have meanings and "macroevolution" is already defined and understood by all sides: Evolutionary processes at or above the species level. After all, it was creationists who came up with the concept of "macroevolution" in the first place. They have always meant "speciation" because they thought we could never see it. They think that there is some block to biology that prevents a new species from arising. They insist all mutations are deleterious and it is impossible to have enough of them collect to the point that you have a new species.

We saw that happen right here in this thread, Modulous. The fact that you are blinding yourself to what is happening right in front of you is not my problem. Pull your head out of your ass and pay attention to the posts.

quote:
I am just responding to your position that we should just point at speciation

(*blink!*)

You did not just say that, did you?

"Just" point at speciation? "JUST"?

You've done it again, Modulous: Do you actually bother to read the posts in the threads you deign to respond to? Why do you think you have anything useful to say when you are so clearly unprepared?

Go back and read my posts. Where do you find anything where I have even hinted that we "just" point at speciation?

quote:
and that ends the discussion regarding whether what creationists are talking about has ever been observed. Sometimes it has, but not always.

See, here you show you haven't actually read any of my posts. I want you to show me chapter and verse where I have implied let alone stated that this "ends the discussion."

Stop playing dumb.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Modulous, posted 04-28-2012 3:43 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Chuck77, posted 04-29-2012 4:08 AM Rrhain has responded
 Message 193 by Modulous, posted 04-29-2012 11:10 AM Rrhain has responded

    
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 175 of 215 (660738)
04-29-2012 4:08 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by Rrhain
04-29-2012 2:05 AM


Rrhain writes:

They have always meant "speciation" because they thought we could never see it. They think that there is some block to biology that prevents a new species from arising. They insist all mutations are deleterious and it is impossible to have enough of them collect to the point that you have a new species.

Can you give an example of macro-evolution being witnessed today as happening like the ToE says it does? Don't say the moths either, or even a poodle from a wolf, that's just variation within a kind.

Macro-evolution is a cow, slowly over long periods of time, becoming a whale.

Have you ever witnessed anything like that happening?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Rrhain, posted 04-29-2012 2:05 AM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-29-2012 4:16 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 177 by Granny Magda, posted 04-29-2012 4:33 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 179 by Tangle, posted 04-29-2012 4:48 AM Chuck77 has responded
 Message 203 by JonF, posted 04-30-2012 9:02 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 205 by Rrhain, posted 05-21-2012 2:01 AM Chuck77 has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15929
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 176 of 215 (660739)
04-29-2012 4:16 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by Chuck77
04-29-2012 4:08 AM


Macro-evolution is a cow, slowly over long periods of time, becoming a whale.

Have you ever witnessed anything like that happening?

Obviously no-one has ever witnessed long periods of time. People do not live for long periods of time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Chuck77, posted 04-29-2012 4:08 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2301
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 177 of 215 (660740)
04-29-2012 4:33 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by Chuck77
04-29-2012 4:08 AM


You do realise that if a person did see a cow turning into a whale within the course of a human lifetime, it would falsify the ToE, right? You understand that don't you?

Mutate and Survive


This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Chuck77, posted 04-29-2012 4:08 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

    
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 178 of 215 (660741)
04-29-2012 4:41 AM


Yes, I know that, but Rrhain says it's been witnessed. I'm just wondering what it is he means.
Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by PaulK, posted 04-29-2012 4:56 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 183 by Granny Magda, posted 04-29-2012 5:31 AM Chuck77 has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4642
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 179 of 215 (660742)
04-29-2012 4:48 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by Chuck77
04-29-2012 4:08 AM


Chuck writes:

Macro-evolution is a cow, slowly over long periods of time, becoming a whale

if a cow turned into a whale over ANY period of time, I'd worship any god you told me too.


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Chuck77, posted 04-29-2012 4:08 AM Chuck77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Chuck77, posted 04-29-2012 4:51 AM Tangle has responded

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 180 of 215 (660743)
04-29-2012 4:51 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by Tangle
04-29-2012 4:48 AM


Well, how about any land mammal to sea mammal?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Tangle, posted 04-29-2012 4:48 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Tangle, posted 04-29-2012 5:11 AM Chuck77 has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1011
12
131415Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017