|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
RAZD writes:
My fragile, egg-shell mind is having trouble dealing with this question. Please don't ask it again.
Care to give us your definition of macroevolution so that we can talk about it the same way? What is macroevolution?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1
|
Catholics who accept evolution are not practising true Catholicism. Wait a minute...didnt the Holy See himself condone evolution? Or is he too an imitator?Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Dredge writes:
quote: Why do I get the feeling that you never actually studied statistics? Sample size = Where Z is the Z-score for your confidence level (do you need to be shown how to calculate this...do you know that you can simply look it up?), σ is the standard deviation, and E is the margin of error. You will note that the population size isn't included for it isn't truly important. It might make a difference for small populations, but that only serves to drive down the sample size. If you only have 100 people in the population, the sample size isn't as large. But if the population is in the millions, your sample size will only be in the hundreds. For example, a confidence level of 95% with a standard deviation of 0.5 and a margin of error of 5%, your sample size is only 385. With a margin of error of 3%, it's only 1067. Shoot for a 99% confidence with a 3% margin of error, you only need 1843. Now, let's see if you really did study statistics: What assumption has been made regarding this sample?
quote: Nope. Different, yes, but not "much more complicated and prone to uncertainties." In fact, archaeological evidence is much more solid than for an election: We have no way to track a vote to an individual so we can only go by self-reporting through exit polls. With archaeological evidence, we have the fossil right in front of us.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
RAZD writes:
My fragile, egg-shell mind is having trouble dealing with this question. Please don't ask it again. Care to give us your definition of macroevolution so that we can talk about it the same way? What is macroevolution? And yet you had no trouble talking about macroevolution in Message 575 where you said:
... and therefore has nothing to do with macroevolutionary changes. ... 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. ... So your answer doesn't help me understand what is "happening all around us" that provides evidence of macroevolution. So how can I help you understand "macroevolution" if you don't have some idea of what the term means - even if it is just some vague idea. That is why I also asked (Message 580):
In science macroevolution is defined as anagenesis plus cladogenesis, which you seem to agree occurs around us. What else do you expect to occur? Italics added for emphasis. Let us know what else you expect to occur, and then we can discuss how realistic that expectation is. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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. Once again we see a misunderstanding of how science works. In science theories cannot be proven, they can be validated or invalidated. Theories make predictions that can be used as tests of the theory: if they fail the test then the theory is invalidated and needs to be revised or discarded, but if they pass the test the theory is validated - but not proven, because the next test could invalidate it. The theory of evolution then predicts that IF the mammalian ear structure developed from the reptilian ear structure by evolutionary processes, THEN there would be intermediates between these structures. So this is a test of the theory: ARE THERE INTERMEDIATES? Yes. In fact there are many in the fossil record that show a progression over time from the reptilian jaw/ear structure (where the single ear bone is attached to the three bone jaw) to the mammalian jaw/ear structure (where the three bone ear is separated from the single jaw bone). This includes several species with double jointed jaws (the original reptilian joint and the new mammalian joint). Others show differences in the sizes of these bones as they change over time, adapting to the new structure. When placed in their respective locations within the spacio-temporal matrix they form a linear progression from one ancestral state to the newer derived state, not just one intermediate but intermediates between intermediates between intermediates -- just as predicted by evolution. This is not "proof" ... but it is strong validation of the theory. Consider that there is no reason for such gradations of intermediates to exist if evolution is not the process involved. Another teachable moment brought to you by Dredge Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dredge writes:
So good stewardship to you is "demonic"?
Don't mention the Green Party ever again; they're demonic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I only have one religion - Catholicism. Catholics who accept evolution are not practising true Catholicism. Does that include the Pope? But perhaps we are digressing from the topic, which is how we have the fossils, and win.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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. We have empirical evidence. Specifically, we have the fossils. We win.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
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. But no-one has presented a statistical analysis of fossils in this thread. Least of all your good self. I have just said that there are intermediate forms. If I said there was evidence for the existence of brown dogs, and gave you three dozen examples of brown dogs, then how would it even be relevant for you to discuss how many other dogs there are? I would reply: we have the brown dogs. We win. Statistics doesn't come into it. Now if I had claimed that this proved that all dogs were brown, or that this proved that 60% of dogs were brown, then it might be time to talk about how many dogs there are that I haven't looked at, and how big my sample size was, and to discuss p-values, and to ask how random my sample was. But if I merely assert that this proves that there are brown dogs, how would statistics even be relevant to my assertion? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
DrAdequate writes: Does that include the Pope? Of course it does. You can't expect much from a Jesuit. The Jesuits are the most corrupted order in a very corrupted Church.
But perhaps we are digressing from the topic, which is how we have the fossils, and win.
What do you "win"? Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 738 days) Posts: 2236 Joined: |
quote: But God used Satan to make David take the census, right? Why can't God use Satan or whatever agent he happens to use to create man?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined:
|
Dredge writes: DrAdequate writes: But perhaps we are digressing from the topic, which is how we have the fossils, and win. What do you "win"? The EvC argument. Nothing more, nothing less.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlexCaledin Member (Idle past 413 days) Posts: 64 From: Samara, Russia Joined: |
- quite analogous to fossils, you have the Fourier components of any recorded "Meow" sound from a cat; so you may well be asserting that the sound is formed by those sine waves - existing from infinite past - and not by a cat some minutes ago. So, if you want to believe in registered sounds only and not in any cats, you win the argument likewise.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
^^^ gotta be post of the month.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Your questions are too deep for my shallow, fragile, egg-shell mind. Please do not ask them again.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024