|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: evolution vs. creationism: evolution wins | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xevolutionist Member (Idle past 6923 days) Posts: 189 From: Salem, Oregon, US Joined: |
I wasn't aware that using quotes was against the guidelines. I didn't intend to include the material preceeding the quotes. I am one person attempting to respond to several in the limited time I have for this intellectual exercise. Please forgive me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6023 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
I am stating that the variations of finches are sub species, in that they are all recognizable in form as finches. Why did you choose "finch" as your level of cut-off, rather than "birds"?
a cat is still a cat, and a dog is still a dog. Is a lion a cat? Is a wolf a dog? Are all fish "fish"? Or are there different species of fish? How do you tell them apart?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Quotes are only evidence of someone elses opinions. What we want is objective evidence, the evidence that these people have based their opinion on.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6023 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
I wasn't aware that using quotes was against the guidelines. There is a clear difference between "using quotes" and plagiarism.
I didn't intend to include the material preceeding the quotes. Funny, if you didn't include that material, your post wouldn't have made sense.
I am one person attempting to respond to several in the limited time I have for this intellectual exercise. Take your time with a few well-written posts, with evidence where required. You'll garner much more respect than posting a multitude of random unresearched statements from creationist websites. The latter technique favors you getting even more respondents, because it is infuriating, and so easy to refute.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
You OUGHT to realise that passing off somebody elses material as your own is wrong without needing to check the rules.
But rule 6 expressly forbids the use of other peoples material without attributing it to the real author.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xevolutionist Member (Idle past 6923 days) Posts: 189 From: Salem, Oregon, US Joined: |
Are a lion and tiger different species? I am saying that there are limits, and experiments have proven that.
Dogs are wolves who have just about reached the limit on selective breeding. I do not see how a hairless chihuahua is an example of natural selection. If the wolf were a result of chihuahuas breeding, then you would have something.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xevolutionist Member (Idle past 6923 days) Posts: 189 From: Salem, Oregon, US Joined: |
Humorous, isn't it, that objective evidence is what I was looking for when I first joined this discussion? It seems we don't always get what we want.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Indeed. You found that the evidence for evolution did exist - which is exactly what you did not want. Thus your participation here is focussed on inventing excuses to disregard that evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: We did supply it, the fossils comprising the horse lineage. What did you say in response? --Transitionals can't exist because evolution is false.--I won't tell you what a transitional would look like because they can't exist. --That isn't a new species, it is some other name that doesn't entail supporting evolution. We presented it, you ran away from it. If that horse lineage does not support evolution, then explain why. Also supply what the horse lineage should look like. In addition, explain why we see these horses in different layers, in a chronological order. You have also ducked the DNA evidence. Do you want to start a discussion of the DNA evidence? I warn you, the DNA evidence is even more strongly in support of evidence than the fossil record. PS: Just out of curiosity. How can you call yourself an ex-evolutionist if you never knew what it stated nor the evidence that supports it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6023 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
Are a lion and tiger different species? They are by my definition. I'm honestly not sure if they are by yours, which is why I asked. Are lions and tigers part of the "cats" species? Are all fish one species?
I am saying that there are limits, and experiments have proven that. Please reference the experiments that have proven there are limits to evolution, and how they specifically they do so. How do we know where the limits are? What defines them?
Dogs are wolves who have just about reached the limit on selective breeding. Where is the limit? How do we know that dogs have "just about reached the limit"?
I do not see how a hairless chihuahua is an example of natural selection. You definitely need to learn the difference between "natural selection" and "artificial selection". Domestic animals cannot be used to make statements regarding evolution. As Crashfrog well-stated above, animal husbandry deals with selection only, while evolution encompasses mutation and selection. You criticized scientists for adding terminology to suit their purpose. Here you've done the same, but with no scientific basis whatsoever. You've simply created the concept of a "limit" to avoid accepting evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xevolutionist Member (Idle past 6923 days) Posts: 189 From: Salem, Oregon, US Joined: |
I was just on a taxonomy lab wbsite and it talked about creativity and said that the rules for classifying are by no means settled. Does this mean that anything goes, or is that site in error?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4127 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
Could you provide us with a link for that site and a pointer towards the bit that you feel says that?
You seem to have that odd mindset shown by believers who feel they know "the truth" - either we know all or we know nothing. This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 25 January 2005 18:15 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xevolutionist Member (Idle past 6923 days) Posts: 189 From: Salem, Oregon, US Joined: |
No, I was reading about experiments that were designed to see if there were limits. One involved paramecium selected for physical size. After a certain point a limit was reached and they would not continue to increase in size. Another involved fruit flies bred to decrease the number of hairs on their thorax. They were able to greatly reduce the number of hairs, but not eliminate them entirely.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6023 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
I was just on a taxonomy lab wbsite and it talked about creativity and said that the rules for classifying are by no means settled. How about providing the web address so that we can all take a gander?
Does this mean that anything goes, or is that site in error? There are other options, like taxonomy practice is in a state of revision, which isn't neccessarily a negative thing. From my experience, "failure to interbreed under normal conditions" is a fairly standard definition in evolutionary studies of sexually reproducing organisms.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6023 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
I was reading about experiments that were designed to see if there were limits. Please reference those experiments - simply mentioning you read "about" them isn't sufficient. You seem to be referring to the limits of selective breeding rather than the limits of evolution. (See multiple above comments regarding the difference).
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024