Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   evolution vs. creationism: evolution wins
xevolutionist
Member (Idle past 6923 days)
Posts: 189
From: Salem, Oregon, US
Joined: 01-13-2005


Message 286 of 310 (180546)
01-25-2005 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by pink sasquatch
01-25-2005 4:46 PM


Re: PLAGIARISM!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by pink sasquatch, posted 01-25-2005 4:46 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Loudmouth, posted 01-25-2005 5:36 PM xevolutionist has replied
 Message 289 by pink sasquatch, posted 01-25-2005 5:41 PM xevolutionist has not replied
 Message 290 by PaulK, posted 01-25-2005 5:45 PM xevolutionist has not replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 287 of 310 (180547)
01-25-2005 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by xevolutionist
01-25-2005 5:22 PM


Re: semantics
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by xevolutionist, posted 01-25-2005 5:22 PM xevolutionist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by xevolutionist, posted 01-25-2005 5:49 PM pink sasquatch has replied
 Message 296 by xevolutionist, posted 01-25-2005 6:09 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 288 of 310 (180549)
01-25-2005 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by xevolutionist
01-25-2005 5:34 PM


Re: PLAGIARISM!
quote:
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.
Quotes are only evidence of someone elses opinions. What we want is objective evidence, the evidence that these people have based their opinion on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by xevolutionist, posted 01-25-2005 5:34 PM xevolutionist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by xevolutionist, posted 01-25-2005 5:53 PM Loudmouth has replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 289 of 310 (180551)
01-25-2005 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by xevolutionist
01-25-2005 5:34 PM


Re: PLAGIARISM!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by xevolutionist, posted 01-25-2005 5:34 PM xevolutionist has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 290 of 310 (180552)
01-25-2005 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by xevolutionist
01-25-2005 5:34 PM


Re: PLAGIARISM!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by xevolutionist, posted 01-25-2005 5:34 PM xevolutionist has not replied

xevolutionist
Member (Idle past 6923 days)
Posts: 189
From: Salem, Oregon, US
Joined: 01-13-2005


Message 291 of 310 (180554)
01-25-2005 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by pink sasquatch
01-25-2005 5:34 PM


Re: semantics
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by pink sasquatch, posted 01-25-2005 5:34 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by pink sasquatch, posted 01-25-2005 6:08 PM xevolutionist has replied
 Message 301 by AdminNosy, posted 01-25-2005 6:52 PM xevolutionist has not replied

xevolutionist
Member (Idle past 6923 days)
Posts: 189
From: Salem, Oregon, US
Joined: 01-13-2005


Message 292 of 310 (180558)
01-25-2005 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by Loudmouth
01-25-2005 5:36 PM


Re: PLAGIARISM!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Loudmouth, posted 01-25-2005 5:36 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by PaulK, posted 01-25-2005 5:57 PM xevolutionist has not replied
 Message 294 by Loudmouth, posted 01-25-2005 6:04 PM xevolutionist has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 293 of 310 (180560)
01-25-2005 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by xevolutionist
01-25-2005 5:53 PM


Re: PLAGIARISM!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by xevolutionist, posted 01-25-2005 5:53 PM xevolutionist has not replied

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 294 of 310 (180563)
01-25-2005 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by xevolutionist
01-25-2005 5:53 PM


Re: PLAGIARISM!
quote:
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.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by xevolutionist, posted 01-25-2005 5:53 PM xevolutionist has not replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 295 of 310 (180564)
01-25-2005 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by xevolutionist
01-25-2005 5:49 PM


define your limits - with references
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by xevolutionist, posted 01-25-2005 5:49 PM xevolutionist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by xevolutionist, posted 01-25-2005 6:16 PM pink sasquatch has replied
 Message 302 by xevolutionist, posted 01-25-2005 7:01 PM pink sasquatch has not replied
 Message 304 by xevolutionist, posted 01-25-2005 7:31 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

xevolutionist
Member (Idle past 6923 days)
Posts: 189
From: Salem, Oregon, US
Joined: 01-13-2005


Message 296 of 310 (180565)
01-25-2005 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by pink sasquatch
01-25-2005 5:34 PM


Re: semantics
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by pink sasquatch, posted 01-25-2005 5:34 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by CK, posted 01-25-2005 6:12 PM xevolutionist has not replied
 Message 299 by pink sasquatch, posted 01-25-2005 6:16 PM xevolutionist has not replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 297 of 310 (180567)
01-25-2005 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by xevolutionist
01-25-2005 6:09 PM


Re: semantics
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by xevolutionist, posted 01-25-2005 6:09 PM xevolutionist has not replied

xevolutionist
Member (Idle past 6923 days)
Posts: 189
From: Salem, Oregon, US
Joined: 01-13-2005


Message 298 of 310 (180568)
01-25-2005 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by pink sasquatch
01-25-2005 6:08 PM


Re: define your limits - with references
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by pink sasquatch, posted 01-25-2005 6:08 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by pink sasquatch, posted 01-25-2005 6:19 PM xevolutionist has not replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 299 of 310 (180569)
01-25-2005 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by xevolutionist
01-25-2005 6:09 PM


Re: semantics
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by xevolutionist, posted 01-25-2005 6:09 PM xevolutionist has not replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 300 of 310 (180571)
01-25-2005 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by xevolutionist
01-25-2005 6:16 PM


again, with references
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).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by xevolutionist, posted 01-25-2005 6:16 PM xevolutionist has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024