Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 127 (8774 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-21-2017 12:37 PM
386 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, edge, JonF, NoNukes, PaulK, ringo, Tangle, Tanypteryx, Taq (10 members, 376 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Tom Larkin
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 814,334 Year: 18,940/21,208 Month: 1,699/3,111 Week: 494/707 Day: 70/120 Hour: 1/15

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1415
16
1718
...
66NextFF
Author Topic:   Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Taq
Member
Posts: 6795
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 226 of 986 (809276)
05-17-2017 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by Dredge
05-17-2017 5:07 PM


Re: a few bones
Dredge writes:

Forgive my ignorance, but how was the age of the footprints estimated?

40Ar/39Ar dating of the volcanic ash that preserved the footprints.

http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-90-481-9956-3_4


This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Dredge, posted 05-17-2017 5:07 PM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Dredge, posted 05-17-2017 6:06 PM Taq has responded

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 506
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 227 of 986 (809277)
05-17-2017 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by Taq
05-17-2017 10:40 AM


Re: Bones
I don't know - but E looks like John Lennon and B looks like Charles Darwin. G looks like the Phantom, but is it not true that the Phantom cannot die? Skull A looks like me! Am I dead but don't know it?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Taq, posted 05-17-2017 10:40 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Taq, posted 05-17-2017 5:47 PM Dredge has not yet responded

    
Dredge
Member
Posts: 506
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 228 of 986 (809279)
05-17-2017 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by New Cat's Eye
05-17-2017 11:10 AM


NewCat'sEye writes:

the usefulness of this science

Yeah, right - just like the Theory of Parallel Universes is useful!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-17-2017 11:10 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-18-2017 2:42 PM Dredge has not yet responded
 Message 252 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-18-2017 3:12 PM Dredge has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 6795
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 229 of 986 (809280)
05-17-2017 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Dredge
05-17-2017 5:17 PM


Re: Bones
Dredge writes:

I don't know - but E looks like John Lennon and B looks like Charles Darwin. G looks like the Phantom, but is it not true that the Phantom cannot die? Skull A looks like me! Am I dead but don't know it?

I will take that as a tacit admission that those fossils are transitional.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Dredge, posted 05-17-2017 5:17 PM Dredge has not yet responded

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 506
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 230 of 986 (809282)
05-17-2017 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by Taq
05-17-2017 10:38 AM


Re: a few bones
Taq writes:

the very definition of a transitional fossil

That's what they say about, Archaeopteryx, but there are many scientists who disagree.
My personal favorite transitional is the Platypus, extinct for 3.3429087 million years. Some folks in Australia claimed to have seen them (!) but all these so-called witnesses turned out to be loony Jesus-freak creationists.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Taq, posted 05-17-2017 10:38 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Taq, posted 05-17-2017 5:55 PM Dredge has responded
 Message 244 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-17-2017 8:13 PM Dredge has responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 6795
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 231 of 986 (809283)
05-17-2017 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by Dredge
05-17-2017 5:52 PM


Re: a few bones
Dredge writes:

That's what they say about, Archaeopteryx, but there are many scientists who disagree.
My personal favorite transitional is the Platypus, extinct for 3.3429087 million years. Some folks in Australia claimed to have seen them (!) but all these so-called witnesses turned out to be loony Jesus-freak creationists.

Given your sudden attempts to change the subject, I will also take this as a tacit admission that you accept Lucy as a transitional fossil.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Dredge, posted 05-17-2017 5:52 PM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Dredge, posted 05-17-2017 6:13 PM Taq has responded

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 506
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 232 of 986 (809286)
05-17-2017 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by New Cat's Eye
05-17-2017 11:10 AM


NewCat'sEye writes:

Without evolution, biology just doesn't make much sense.


Are you saying that I must accept, for example, that humans evolved from a hominid, in order for biology to make sense to me?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-17-2017 11:10 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Taq, posted 05-17-2017 6:04 PM Dredge has responded
 Message 248 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-18-2017 8:52 AM Dredge has responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 6795
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 233 of 986 (809290)
05-17-2017 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Dredge
05-17-2017 5:59 PM


Dredge writes:

Are you saying that I must accept, for example, that humans evolved from a hominid, in order for biology to make sense to me?

Go to posts 4, 9, 12, 13, and 17. Try to explain those same observations without using evolution.

The whole point is that you can't make sense of those observations without using evolution. This point is further supported by your inability to even address those posts, much less explain them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Dredge, posted 05-17-2017 5:59 PM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Dredge, posted 05-17-2017 6:23 PM Taq has responded
 Message 243 by Dredge, posted 05-17-2017 7:40 PM Taq has responded

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 506
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 234 of 986 (809291)
05-17-2017 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Taq
05-17-2017 5:15 PM


Re: a few bones
Taq writes:

40Ar/39Ar dating of the volcanic ash

I bought one of those 40Ar/39Ar dating kits from K-mart ($12.95) and found it to be unreliable. Then I read the instructions and tried again - it was worse.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Taq, posted 05-17-2017 5:15 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Taq, posted 05-17-2017 6:11 PM Dredge has responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 6795
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


(2)
Message 235 of 986 (809293)
05-17-2017 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Dredge
05-17-2017 6:06 PM


Re: a few bones
Dredge writes:

I bought one of those 40Ar/39Ar dating kits from K-mart ($12.95) and found it to be unreliable. Then I read the instructions and tried again - it was worse.

Given your pathetic attempts to dismiss radiometric dating, we will conclude that you have nothing to counter the dates given in the peer reviewed literature.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Dredge, posted 05-17-2017 6:06 PM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by Dredge, posted 05-17-2017 6:29 PM Taq has responded

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 506
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 236 of 986 (809296)
05-17-2017 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Taq
05-17-2017 5:55 PM


Re: a few bones
No wonder you're a Darwinist - you have a natural aptitude for taking an observation and applying wild extrapolation to it, thus ending up with an unreasonable conclusion.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Taq, posted 05-17-2017 5:55 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Taq, posted 05-17-2017 6:18 PM Dredge has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 6795
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 237 of 986 (809299)
05-17-2017 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by Dredge
05-17-2017 6:13 PM


Re: a few bones
Dredge writes:

No wonder you're a Darwinist - you have a natural aptitude for taking an observation and applying wild extrapolation to it, thus ending up with an unreasonable conclusion.

What extrapolation? We can directly see a combination of human and ape features in the fossil, no extrapolation needed.

If a transitional is not a fossil with a mixture of ape and human features, then please explain what features a transitional should have. What features would a fossil need in order for you to accept it as being transitional between humans and a common ancestor shared with other apes?

Of course, you will never accept any fossil as being transitional, right? No matter what a fossil looks like, you have already decided before looking at it that it can't be transitional. All you have is denial, and this is evidenced by you inability to deal with the fossils themselves.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Dredge, posted 05-17-2017 6:13 PM Dredge has not yet responded

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 506
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 238 of 986 (809301)
05-17-2017 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Taq
05-17-2017 6:04 PM


Taq writes:

you can't make sense of those observations without using evolution


A trained philosopher would immediately recognise this statement as some kind of logical fallacy - something to do with ignoring the possibility that there could be another explanation, known or as yet unknown.

A simple example - I wake up one morning and discover that a dent has appeared in a panel on my car. I can come up with a theory of how it got there that may seem reasonable to me, but there are other possibilities. My theory could be dead wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Taq, posted 05-17-2017 6:04 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Taq, posted 05-17-2017 6:24 PM Dredge has responded
 Message 240 by jar, posted 05-17-2017 6:27 PM Dredge has not yet responded
 Message 250 by ringo, posted 05-18-2017 12:14 PM Dredge has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 6795
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 239 of 986 (809302)
05-17-2017 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by Dredge
05-17-2017 6:23 PM


Dredge writes:

A trained philosopher would immediately recognise this statement as some kind of logical fallacy - something to do with ignoring the possibility that there could be another explanation, known or as yet unknown.
A simple example - I wake up one morning and discover that a dent has appeared in a panel on my car. I can come up with a theory of how it got there that may seem reasonable to me, but there are other possibilities. My theory could be dead wrong.

You still can't explain those observations in those posts. Go figure.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Dredge, posted 05-17-2017 6:23 PM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Dredge, posted 05-20-2017 6:23 PM Taq has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29137
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 240 of 986 (809303)
05-17-2017 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by Dredge
05-17-2017 6:23 PM


Dredge writes:

A trained philosopher would immediately recognise this statement as some kind of logical fallacy - something to do with ignoring the possibility that there could be another explanation, known or as yet unknown.

A simple example - I wake up one morning and discover that a dent has appeared in a panel on my car. I can come up with a theory of how it got there that may seem reasonable to me, but there are other possibilities. My theory could be dead wrong.

Thank God scientists are not philosophers and don't simply come up with a theory but rather test it. In the case of the Theory of Evolution they have been testing it for hundreds of years and in fact EVERY new discovery, EVERY new testing method has shown that the Theory of Evolution is correct.

What you describe is the utter nonsense marketed by Creationists.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Dredge, posted 05-17-2017 6:23 PM Dredge has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1415
16
1718
...
66NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017