|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: evolution vs. creationism: evolution wins | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Or are you really asking? Yes, I'm really asking, because I didn't understand. You generally write well enough that I didn't even think of chalking it up to unclear writing; I assumed you really meant to say "proof of evidence", which I didn't understand. I mean, if it's the evidence you want, we'll get into it (if you like, in another thread probably). If it's the "proof of evidence" that you want, we need to know what that is first.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 476 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
Jane writes: Thank you. and I am honestly being sincere. Welcome, Jane, to our little corner of the internet. I am glad that you are sincere. Your previous post have some of the more common straw man approach that we see from time to time. It really appear to me that it is anything but humble. Just so you know, the evo side on this forum has experts of many fields. Some are doctorates in their various fields (biology, physics, geology, etc.). My opinion is that it is always wise for "newbies" such as yourself to first read and ask questions more than making assertions. It is almost always a good idea to assume that other people know more than you rather than less. As the old saying goes, or something similar, "when I was in grade school my parents didn't know anything, when I was in high school my parents knew just as much as me, and when I was in college my parents knew way more than me."
I am sorry if I annoyed you.
Don't worry about it. Ned is one of the most patient people on this forum. If you really want to, he will work with you one step at a time. Even though he looks like your typical crazy grandpa he is really a nice guy. This message has been edited by Jacen, 01-18-2005 02:42 AM Here is something to relieve stress. Assume that a does not equal b. a + b = t(a + b)(a - b) = t(a - b) a - b = at - bt a - at = b - bt a - at + t/4 = b - bt + t/4 (a - t/2) = (b - t/2) a - t/2 = b - t/2 a = b Since all numbers are the same, math is useless.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
So basically you are saying that a bone is just a bone and there's no difference between a fish jaw and a human jaw. Even I know that is false and I'm no expert on anatomy.
The material you quote indicates at least some of the structural similarities that supported the classification. And of course we have far better fossils of other early tetrapods. So why are you so determined to deny the existence of the evidence ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xevolutionist Member (Idle past 6922 days) Posts: 189 From: Salem, Oregon, US Joined: |
If the partial mandible of Elginerpeton were of an animal similar to a platypus what conclusions might be reached? In the example of Panderichthys, it was believed to be an early tetreapod until a complete fossil was discovered, when it was found to be a fish.
On the original skull fragments found and reconstructed, of "Lucy", a paleontologist, not a creationist, remarked that it was composed "primarily of plaster of paris and imagination." Am I missing something here? If you have better examples, that is what I am looking for. Perhaps you could also notify the Talk. Origin website creator, and that would save people like me from spending so much time on these very poor examples which are posted on sites which claim to give proof.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 476 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
xevolutionist writes: ...which are posted on sites which claim to give proof. I can certainly understand why you believed in evolution in the first place then switched to creation. This message has been edited by Jacen, 01-18-2005 10:44 AM Here is something to relieve stress. Assume that a does not equal b. a + b = t(a + b)(a - b) = t(a - b) a - b = at - bt a - at = b - bt a - at + t/4 = b - bt + t/4 (a - t/2) = (b - t/2) a - t/2 = b - t/2 a = b Since all numbers are the same, math is useless.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: I simply find it hard to see how a book can be proof of anyting, other than some guys wrote a book. And you say evolutionists are gullible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Well for a start you are mixing up three different fossil species:
Pandericthys was the fish originally mistaken for a tetrapod - on the basis of its brain case, not the mandible. Obruchevichthys is the species known only from a mandible. Elginerpeton is another fossil species for which a partial skeleton exists The error in identifying Panderichthys is NOT a problem for evolution but evidence for it. Pandericthys is still a transitional - it just happens to be closer to the "fish" side of the transition of fish to tetrapods than was originally thought. So in fact you are missing everything. Did you even think about the question of WHY a fish skull should be so like a tetrapod skull ? And I certainly don't want to spare you the effort of having to pretend that all that evidence doesn't exist. You may be determined to keep your mind closed but that does not mean that I have to help you be censoring information you don't want to see or think about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xevolutionist Member (Idle past 6922 days) Posts: 189 From: Salem, Oregon, US Joined: |
Like so many young people, I actually thought that educators and scientists wouldn't teach as factual [and they do teach that ToE is fact] a theory that appears to have very little, if any, substantiation. I made the mistake of trusting people whose job it is to educate. Even these examples I've given claim to be proof. Well, I won't get fooled again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
You have yet to provide a single example of anyone teaching the TOE as fact. I would imagine that the name Theory of Evolution might be a clue that it is taught as theory, not fact.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xevolutionist Member (Idle past 6922 days) Posts: 189 From: Salem, Oregon, US Joined: |
Yes, I didn't have my coffee yet, but that doesn't negate my basic argument that far reaching conclusions are being made on the basis of a partial mandible, although in just two posts you have streched it to a complete skull?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xevolutionist Member (Idle past 6922 days) Posts: 189 From: Salem, Oregon, US Joined: |
I didn't realize that I had to prove personal history. Ask any high school student you meet how it is being taught today. If you find some that are even aware there is an alternate theory I'll be surprised. Anyway, I was responding to a slur on my intelligence, not a discussion of the facts. Which category is your post?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 476 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
I think you missed my point. But that's ok.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4127 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
Well the TOE is made up of lots of facts. I think you are starting to get the hang of this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Evolution is both, it is fact and theory. The Facts of Evolution:--natural selection has been observed to cause changes in allele frequencies. --the formation of new species has been observed first hand. --life changed over millions of years. The Theory of Evolution: --the reason that life changed over millions of years, and that all life shares a common ancestor, is due to the observable mechanisms (ie facts) that we observe now. Namely, mutation and natural selection result in change and speciation over time. The substantiation that you say is lacking is in fact quite voluminous. Perhaps the largest block of data is DNA, which supports the trees of life that were onced constructed by morphology alone. Also, DNA supports common ancestory in a way that no fossil was ever capable of doing. Your refusal to face up to this evidence is not the theorie's fault.
quote: Nothing is ever given as proof. Proof is for math and alcohol. The word you are looking for is evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I've not stretched anything. From your own post:
quote: So your claim that far reaching conclusiosn are being reached based on a single partial mandible requires denying the existence of Panderichthys entirely as well as other known fossils such as Icthyostega and Acanthostega. That partial mandible is only one piece of the evidence involved.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024