|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
QuickSearch
|
|
| AZPaul3, CoolBeans, CosmicChimp, Dr Adequate, DrJones*, hooah212002, Jon, Panda, Percy (Admin) (9 members, 225 visitors)
| ||||||
| Chatting now: | Chat room empty | ||||||
| letchimWOD | |||||||
|
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: Dogs will be Dogs will be ??? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dr Adequate Member  Posts: 11073 Joined: Member Rating: 9.1 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 11073 Joined: Member Rating: 9.1 |
This rewriting of history is no more plausible than other creationist attempts to do the same thing. The fact is that it is of course scientists, i.e. evolutionists, who spent a great deal of time and effort elucidating the function of noncoding DNA. After evolutionists had spent a few decades explaining the functions of these regions to (amongst others) creationists who spent their time sitting on their asses doing no science and whining about it, creationists managed to understand the information that evolutionists had spoon-fed them. At this point, creationists inbvented a new lie. They started to pretend that it was evolutionist dogma that all non-coding DNA was "junk", and that the facts that evolutionists had, in reality, spoon-fed you, contradicted this imaginary dogma. Your use of the word "now" is particularly revealling. As so often with creationists, you date these discoveries not from when they were made by evolutionists, but from the point at which creationists learned to lie about them. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 11073 Joined: Member Rating: 9.1 |
They do seem to have been pretty much walking hand-in-hand for the last 150 years or so, which is why, for example, the functions of non-coding DNA were not discovered by the non-rational, untruthful, unscientific creationists at the ICR or the DI.
But this isn't actually true, is it? It is, however, the lie that creationists have been reciting to themselves for the past 150 years or so. The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism The myth that any moment now you guys will triumph has literally been passed down from generation to generation. I might ask at what point creationists will realise that this is stupid, but the question would be purely rhetorical. You won't.
"If ifs and buts were candy and nuts ..."
Better yet, we can prove 'em!
And yet it is my posts that are factually accurate. It seems that in the creationist Bizarro World you inhabit, I "deceive" people by telling the truth, whereas you enlighten them by reciting witless creationist nonsense, don't you, Mr "all Earth's creatures have 2 eyes"? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 11073 Joined: Member Rating: 9.1 |
Damn, if only you had a valid point. Back in the real world, morphology and the fossil record put crocodiles closer to birds than to Komodo dragons. And molecular phylogeny confirmed it. In the real world, morphology and the fossil record put coelacanths closer to giraffes than to codfish. And molecular phylogeny confirmed it. Creationism, of course, could and did predict no such thing. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 11073 Joined: Member Rating: 9.1 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 11073 Joined: Member Rating: 9.1 |
What's wrong with the Biological Species Concept?
All of which have hooves.
Really? You want to mention any of it? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 11073 Joined: Member Rating: 9.1 |
Then they should probably spend less time pretending that it doesn't happen.
I have noticed creationists using the word "species" now and then too.
I don't know what this is meant to mean --- do you? --- but the reason there's no falsification of the theory is 'cos it's true, not because of your inability to define species.
Not noticeably, you don't. You seem rather to revel in them, in fact.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 11073 Joined: Member Rating: 9.1 |
Yes, that was kind of my point. So we have a series of intermediate forms between something that definitely isn't a horse and something that definitely is.
No forcing is required. We predicted intermediate forms, intermediate forms we got.
There are always "unfound transitionals", this is because the fossil record does not contain every animal that ever lived, and because we've only looked at a fraction of it anyway. There are, however, plenty enough to confirm horse evolution.
What you have been taught by creationists about this subject is certainly inaccurate. It seems to have arisen by misunderstanding a fairly trivial point of the paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould. Certainly there is a bush, as evolutionists have always maintained. Tree of Life, remember? It's one of those things we've been banging on about for the last century-and-a-half. And there is, naturally, a line that you can draw on any bush leading from its trunk to the tip of one of its twigs. This would be the line of descent of (in this case) Equus. Stephen Jay Gould's point was that if we just show this line of descent, we are to some extent concealing how evolutionists think that evolution works, as exemplified by the fossil record of horses and by the one diagram in the Origin of Species:
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 11073 Joined: Member Rating: 9.1 |
Yes. That's an argument for evolution. It's in the Origin of Species.
No you can't. You cannot, for example, pick a definition of "species" that makes a tiger the same species as a hummingbird.
Macroevolution depends crucially on the fact that there are no sharp lines between species, which are merely human methods of classification. The inability of creationists to come up with one hard-and-fast definition of species rather proves our point. If you guys wish to claim that one species can't turn into another, please come up with one "unequivocal" definition of species. According to the theory of evolution, there can be no definition such that the relation "is the same species as" is transitive, and hence "species" cannot be an equivalence class. Your call. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 11073 Joined: Member Rating: 9.1 |
Apparently, this is because creationists feel that it's up to us to define the imaginary lines of demarcation that they wish to impose on nature. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 11073 Joined: Member Rating: 9.1 |
Good news, your fears are unfounded, I am absolutely right. Sheesh, what's with you guys? If evolutionists argued like creationists, we'd go around saying stuff like: "Creationists believe that the earth was cremated in six ways by a dog". I don't ask you right now to agree with our point of view, but couldn't you make the tiniest effort to find out what it is?
Wrong. It depends crucially on the fact that there is no such thing.
And one day they may learn what they mean.
Apart from all the creationists who pretend that it's impossible.
But are unable to agree amongst themselves where it lies. Can you even give us your own opinion as to where this "limit" lies?
No, hence all the intermediate forms.
Sorry, I do tend to lapse into mathematical jargon. More on this later. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 11073 Joined: Member Rating: 9.1 |
If this meant anything, it would be wrong. Sheesh, what do you think a mutation is, even? You seem to be jumbling up several different creationist mistakes about genetics into one big mess.
Translation: creationists have been making vague noises like this for decades, but it still makes no sense.
I presume that your favorite "example" is something you've made up, since I know of no such experiment. I also know that every mutation is capable of reversion.
Yes. Observe the changes in the lineage evident in the fossil record. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 11073 Joined: Member Rating: 9.1 |
And mutation. If you don't know this, then you have some reading to do.
Which we see over and over again. This is like saying "if gravity was true, then we'd see things fall when we drop them". We do.
Yeah, we have a bunch of intermediate forms. We win.
You are still lying to us about what we think. You are not going to deceive us by so doing.
I prefer it when you give references that we can read. Since you do not, I am not going to take your word for what any scientific paper says without reading it myself. Because experience shows us that you are not very reliable as to facts. --- Damnit, I had hopes for you. But you're just a creationist lie-machine after all. LEARN SOMETHING ABOUT GENETICS. Anything, it's all good. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 11073 Joined: Member Rating: 9.1 |
Unlike the intermediate forms demonstrating the evolution of horses in the fossil record, then.
Pre-dic-tion.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 11073 Joined: Member Rating: 9.1 |
And this, of course, is why creationists will never present us with a biological, morphological, or genetic criterion for "created kind". They want to lump together as many species as they can into each "created kind", while spliting humans and chimpazees into two different "created kinds". Obviously there is no criterion that enables them to do that. They have to leave this term undefined, just as they have to evade the question about the imaginary line between microevolution and macroevolution, or the imaginary line between varieties and species. Of course they can't say what they mean, their world would fall apart if they tried.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Copyright 2001-2013 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2013
