Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   evolution vs. creationism: evolution wins
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 121 of 310 (178030)
01-18-2005 2:37 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by xevolutionist
01-18-2005 2:31 AM


I'm serious
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by xevolutionist, posted 01-18-2005 2:31 AM xevolutionist has not replied

coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 476 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 122 of 310 (178031)
01-18-2005 2:39 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by RED WOLF
01-14-2005 12:19 PM


Re: This is a little off course but I think you will find it interesting
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by RED WOLF, posted 01-14-2005 12:19 PM RED WOLF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by RED WOLF, posted 01-18-2005 3:28 PM coffee_addict has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 123 of 310 (178032)
01-18-2005 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by xevolutionist
01-18-2005 2:35 AM


Re: Some concerns about proof
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 ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by xevolutionist, posted 01-18-2005 2:35 AM xevolutionist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by xevolutionist, posted 01-18-2005 10:37 AM PaulK has replied

xevolutionist
Member (Idle past 6922 days)
Posts: 189
From: Salem, Oregon, US
Joined: 01-13-2005


Message 124 of 310 (178108)
01-18-2005 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by PaulK
01-18-2005 2:46 AM


Re: Some concerns about proof
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by PaulK, posted 01-18-2005 2:46 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by coffee_addict, posted 01-18-2005 10:43 AM xevolutionist has replied
 Message 127 by PaulK, posted 01-18-2005 10:55 AM xevolutionist has replied

coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 476 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 125 of 310 (178115)
01-18-2005 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by xevolutionist
01-18-2005 10:37 AM


Re: Some concerns about proof
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by xevolutionist, posted 01-18-2005 10:37 AM xevolutionist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by xevolutionist, posted 01-18-2005 10:57 AM coffee_addict has replied

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 126 of 310 (178119)
01-18-2005 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by xevolutionist
01-18-2005 2:35 AM


Re: Some concerns about proof
quote:
I simply find it hard to see how a mandible can be proof of anything, other than some animal had a mandible. And you say creationists are gullible.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by xevolutionist, posted 01-18-2005 2:35 AM xevolutionist has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 127 of 310 (178124)
01-18-2005 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by xevolutionist
01-18-2005 10:37 AM


Re: Some concerns about proof
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by xevolutionist, posted 01-18-2005 10:37 AM xevolutionist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by xevolutionist, posted 01-18-2005 11:04 AM PaulK has replied

xevolutionist
Member (Idle past 6922 days)
Posts: 189
From: Salem, Oregon, US
Joined: 01-13-2005


Message 128 of 310 (178125)
01-18-2005 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by coffee_addict
01-18-2005 10:43 AM


Re: Some concerns about proof
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by coffee_addict, posted 01-18-2005 10:43 AM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by jar, posted 01-18-2005 11:03 AM xevolutionist has replied
 Message 132 by coffee_addict, posted 01-18-2005 11:14 AM xevolutionist has not replied
 Message 133 by CK, posted 01-18-2005 11:16 AM xevolutionist has not replied
 Message 134 by Loudmouth, posted 01-18-2005 11:21 AM xevolutionist has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 129 of 310 (178131)
01-18-2005 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by xevolutionist
01-18-2005 10:57 AM


Re: Some concerns about proof
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by xevolutionist, posted 01-18-2005 10:57 AM xevolutionist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by xevolutionist, posted 01-18-2005 11:13 AM jar has replied

xevolutionist
Member (Idle past 6922 days)
Posts: 189
From: Salem, Oregon, US
Joined: 01-13-2005


Message 130 of 310 (178132)
01-18-2005 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by PaulK
01-18-2005 10:55 AM


Re: Some concerns about proof
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by PaulK, posted 01-18-2005 10:55 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by PaulK, posted 01-18-2005 11:25 AM xevolutionist has replied

xevolutionist
Member (Idle past 6922 days)
Posts: 189
From: Salem, Oregon, US
Joined: 01-13-2005


Message 131 of 310 (178141)
01-18-2005 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by jar
01-18-2005 11:03 AM


Re: Some concerns about proof
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by jar, posted 01-18-2005 11:03 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Coragyps, posted 01-18-2005 1:02 PM xevolutionist has replied
 Message 161 by jar, posted 01-18-2005 5:39 PM xevolutionist has replied

coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 476 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 132 of 310 (178142)
01-18-2005 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by xevolutionist
01-18-2005 10:57 AM


Re: Some concerns about proof
I think you missed my point. But that's ok.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by xevolutionist, posted 01-18-2005 10:57 AM xevolutionist has not replied

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


Message 133 of 310 (178144)
01-18-2005 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by xevolutionist
01-18-2005 10:57 AM


Re: Some concerns about proof
Well the TOE is made up of lots of facts. I think you are starting to get the hang of this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by xevolutionist, posted 01-18-2005 10:57 AM xevolutionist has not replied

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 134 of 310 (178147)
01-18-2005 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by xevolutionist
01-18-2005 10:57 AM


Re: Some concerns about proof
quote:
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.
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:
Even these examples I've given claim to be proof.
Nothing is ever given as proof. Proof is for math and alcohol. The word you are looking for is evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by xevolutionist, posted 01-18-2005 10:57 AM xevolutionist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by xevolutionist, posted 01-18-2005 11:42 AM Loudmouth has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 135 of 310 (178150)
01-18-2005 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by xevolutionist
01-18-2005 11:04 AM


Re: Some concerns about proof
I've not stretched anything. From your own post:
quote:
378 MYR ago- Panderichthys--These are lobe-finned fish. Panderichthys was a rhipidistian,osteolepiform fish. The skull bones of these fish are bone for bone equivalents to the skull bones of the earliest tetrapods. (Carroll 1988, p. 160). These are the only fish whose fin bones fit the tetrapod pattern of humerus, ulna and radius in the forelimb and femur, tibia and fibula in the hindlimb. (Thomson, 1991, p. 488), Yet these limbs still have fins on them (Coates, 1994,p. 174). Their brain case is so much like that of the earliest tetrapod, they were originally classified as tetrapods until a complete skeleton was found. Then is was proven that they were really still fish. (Ahlberg and Milner, 1994, p. 508).
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by xevolutionist, posted 01-18-2005 11:04 AM xevolutionist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by xevolutionist, posted 01-18-2005 12:17 PM PaulK has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024