Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,585 Year: 4,842/9,624 Month: 190/427 Week: 0/103 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Willowtree's Scientific Evidence against Evolution
wj
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 299 (73988)
12-18-2003 1:25 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by John Paul
12-17-2003 9:40 PM


quote:
On page 193 of Milton's book "Shattering the Myths of Darwinism" he has the two skulls side by each. As in the above link they look very similar. If that is all you had to go by good luck figuring out which is which.
Do you think that one skull might have dentition very similar to most placental mammals and the other might have dentition very similar to most marsupial mammals? It's quite obvious that the two skulls have significantly different dentition. This webpage spell it out clearly.
You really are talking rubbish, jp, as you have on your previous visitations here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by John Paul, posted 12-17-2003 9:40 PM John Paul has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by The Elder, posted 12-18-2003 3:32 AM wj has not replied

The Elder
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 299 (73993)
12-18-2003 2:28 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by wj
12-17-2003 8:06 AM


Ok,
I believe that Willowtree has only offered Milton's assertion that certain placental and marsupials species have at least superficial smilarities. Coragyps has effectively refuted this assertion by referencing this link . BTW, I find it amusing that the thylacine is cited as the equivalent of the placental wold when it is commonly referred to as the Tasmanian tiger. This is indicative of the superficiality of resemblences between marsupials and a vaguely reminiscent placental mammal.
The Thylicine is also known as the Tasmanian wolf.
I would also like to offer a test of the alternatives of evolution and Miltonism (for want of a better term). Make a comparison of the genomes of kangaroo, Tasmanian tiger and placental wolf. Evolution would predict that the Tasmanian tiger would be genetically more similar to the kangaroo than the placental wolf because marsupials diverged from placental mammals tens of millions of years ago but the common ancestor of the kangaroo and thylacine would be a marsupial and much more recent. Milton would predict that the Tasmanian tiger would genetically more similar to the placental wolf than the kangaroo because of the shared "wolf-like" mutations.
If the Thylicine was a product of convergent evolution how could this sample have ever been found or preserved? I would think something like this would not exist if it was a product of convergent evolution.
------------------
The Elder
[This message has been edited by The Elder, 12-18-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by wj, posted 12-17-2003 8:06 AM wj has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Zhimbo, posted 12-18-2003 5:24 AM The Elder has replied
 Message 23 by Darwin's Terrier, posted 12-18-2003 5:50 AM The Elder has replied
 Message 59 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-20-2003 6:13 PM The Elder has not replied

The Elder
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 299 (73995)
12-18-2003 3:32 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by wj
12-18-2003 1:25 AM


That is not a difference really.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by wj, posted 12-18-2003 1:25 AM wj has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Zhimbo, posted 12-18-2003 5:23 AM The Elder has replied
 Message 40 by The Elder, posted 12-18-2003 7:03 PM The Elder has not replied

Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6091 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 19 of 299 (74007)
12-18-2003 5:19 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Cold Foreign Object
12-17-2003 10:53 PM


Well, the thread you started was supposed to be about evidence, so this thread was started to get back to the evidence you offered. Sounds good to me. The thread title seems like a pretty straightforward statement of the topic. It is, after all, about your evidence against evolution. Thus, the title.
The philosophical issues could go into its own topic.
Surely you don't mind talking about your own evidence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-17-2003 10:53 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6091 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 20 of 299 (74009)
12-18-2003 5:23 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by The Elder
12-18-2003 3:32 AM


Surely you don't think this counts as a refutation? "That is not a difference really" doesn't really say much, does it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by The Elder, posted 12-18-2003 3:32 AM The Elder has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by The Elder, posted 12-18-2003 7:04 PM Zhimbo has not replied

Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6091 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 21 of 299 (74010)
12-18-2003 5:24 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by The Elder
12-18-2003 2:28 AM


What's so special about that sample? Why does it contradict convergent evolution?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by The Elder, posted 12-18-2003 2:28 AM The Elder has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by The Elder, posted 12-18-2003 7:09 PM Zhimbo has not replied

Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6091 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 22 of 299 (74012)
12-18-2003 5:40 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by John Paul
12-17-2003 11:29 PM


Re: Similarities of two sorts.
quote:
Perhaps chimps & humans are also the result of convergent evolution?
Interesting question! How would we tell the difference?
Convergence is only about general morphology and adaptive function; common descent is about specific genetic similarity independent of function. IN convergence, functionally similar structures may develop from different structures embryologically. With common descent, they'll develop from the same structure.
You get the idea - convergence means similar function for similar ecological niches; close relatedness means genetic and developmental similarity, often despite differences in function.
Chimps and humans share a wide array of genetic similarities, including identically "broken" genes, etc. This deep similarity at a genetic/developmental level makes convergence untenable.
An example of convergence is the "flipper" of the dolphin and the pectoral fin of fishes; functionally similar and superficially similar morphology, but structurally very different. And, of course, dolphins and fishes are quite different genetically.
In contrast, the dolphin's flipper is structurally very similar to the human hand, despite having a different function; humans and dolphins are, I would assume (although I haven't looked this up - but I have made a prediction which could be proven false!) are more similar genetically than dolphins and fishes. This shows relatively close relatedness, despite functional differences.
[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 12-18-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by John Paul, posted 12-17-2003 11:29 PM John Paul has not replied

Darwin's Terrier
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 299 (74013)
12-18-2003 5:50 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by The Elder
12-18-2003 2:28 AM


The Thylicine is also known as the Tasmanian wolf.
Ah, the old creationist game of taxonomy by name. We see it a lot in Homo / Australopithecus discussions.
The thylacine is called both the ‘Tasmanian wolf’ and the ‘Tasmanian tiger’, though I gather that ‘Tazzy Tiger’ is the more common term actually in Tasmania. It is, of course, neither felid nor canid. It’s a marsupial.
Presumably, Elder, you think that ladybirds are birds, flying foxes are foxes, and painted ladies are all female and their wing patterns are paint.
If the Thylicine was a product of convergent evolution how could this sample have ever been found or preserved? I would think something like this would not exist if it was a product of convergent evolution.
Let’s see... If the Thylicine was a product of convergent evolution... okay so far, looks like there’s evidence about to be presented... how could this sample have ever been found or preserved? Um, is it me? ‘If the Thylacine was a product of convergent evolution, how could we ever get a foetus of it and pickle it?’ Hmm, that’s a stumper.
Perhaps by cutting up a pregnant female, putting it in a jar and pouring on formaldehyde? (I realise the just-so story nature of that, sorry!)
I would think something like this would not exist if it was a product of convergent evolution.
And what, pray, would you expect a later-term thylacine foetus to look like? Tell you what, though: get a pic of one just after it was born. I’ll bet you fifty quid that it won’t look like a newborn wolf pup.
If you want to talk embryos, though, take a look at this:
Would you care to tell me -- without cheating -- what species... hell, what order... it belongs to? Notice the tail?
(Incidentally, what's with all these trees suddenly? We've got a willow, and now an elder. Watch this space for 'Herbaceous Border'. (Phrases like 'two short planks' keep popping into my mind... )
TTFN, DT

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by The Elder, posted 12-18-2003 2:28 AM The Elder has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Dr Jack, posted 12-18-2003 5:53 AM Darwin's Terrier has replied
 Message 30 by Mammuthus, posted 12-18-2003 8:03 AM Darwin's Terrier has not replied
 Message 43 by The Elder, posted 12-18-2003 7:12 PM Darwin's Terrier has not replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 24 of 299 (74015)
12-18-2003 5:53 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Darwin's Terrier
12-18-2003 5:50 AM


I think it's a chicken embyro.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Darwin's Terrier, posted 12-18-2003 5:50 AM Darwin's Terrier has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Darwin's Terrier, posted 12-18-2003 6:02 AM Dr Jack has replied

Darwin's Terrier
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 299 (74016)
12-18-2003 6:02 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Dr Jack
12-18-2003 5:53 AM


Sorry, right phylum, wrong class.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Dr Jack, posted 12-18-2003 5:53 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Dr Jack, posted 12-18-2003 7:56 AM Darwin's Terrier has replied

Darwin's Terrier
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 299 (74023)
12-18-2003 6:47 AM


Hey, Elder, here’s another question: if thylacines are wolves, perhaps you could tell me what kind this is? Come to that, what is it?

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Cthulhu, posted 12-18-2003 4:28 PM Darwin's Terrier has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 248 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 27 of 299 (74026)
12-18-2003 7:27 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Cold Foreign Object
12-17-2003 10:53 PM


Nobody's insulted you, nobody's blackmailed you.
Got any evidence? If not, go away.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-17-2003 10:53 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Darwin's Terrier
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 299 (74032)
12-18-2003 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Cold Foreign Object
12-17-2003 10:53 PM


Any honest observer of the previous debate knows the majority of the room was unable (for whatever reason) to argue the philosophical and ideological evidence
Say, Willow old chap, could you tell me please what dictionary you normally use?
No definition I’ve ever seen of philosophy or ideology suggests that they are, in themselves, evidence of anything. They involve argument and contention, and may or may not include evidence to justify those arguments and contentions. But neither area actually is evidence.
Evidence is separate; it is what should be used to support or refute a hypothesis, philosophical position, theory or piece of ideology.
There’s no such thing as philosophical and ideological evidence.
This is where you seem confused: you think you’ve been offering evidence that we’ve been ignoring. In fact, all you have offered is argument, with no evidence to support it.
If you can justify your philosophical and ideological positions, please do. Let’s see your evidence.
TTFN, DT

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-17-2003 10:53 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 29 of 299 (74037)
12-18-2003 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Darwin's Terrier
12-18-2003 6:02 AM


Sorry, right phylum, wrong class.
Ah well; I was close then.
Let's go for.... Mole.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Darwin's Terrier, posted 12-18-2003 6:02 AM Darwin's Terrier has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Darwin's Terrier, posted 12-18-2003 8:07 AM Dr Jack has replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6555 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 30 of 299 (74041)
12-18-2003 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Darwin's Terrier
12-18-2003 5:50 AM


Definitely Jesus...ok maybe Vishnu.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Darwin's Terrier, posted 12-18-2003 5:50 AM Darwin's Terrier 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