|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: questions evolutionists can't or won't answer | |||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1876 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: That is untrue, Joey, and I take this as yet another ad hominem.quote: Lie. Here are all of the links that I provided in the thread in question : Re: baraminology (no mention of femurs at all) Page on whales. Says: "Rodhocetus had well-developed hind limbs (although only the thighbone, or femur, has been preserved)..." Two links to pictures of guenons - nothing about femurs at all. A link to a DNA alignment - obviously nothing on femurs. An interesting and pertinent link that you tried to blow off. . But again, nothing equating femurs to limbs. That is all. Please demonstrate that I provided a link in which it is claimed that femurs are also appendages unto themselves. In reality, it was YOU that provided (via your beloved encyclopedia) a general definition of femur that stated what you claim above: "FEMUR: limb or appendage of an animal..." It seems that you cannot even support your own claims without resorting to projection.quote: Why are you laughing? There is no reason to do so. Is this another alleged example of you feeding me my lunch? Your first sentence makes no sense whatsoever.Additionally, I have also responded to this repeated goof in this thread:
The reason I had asked that in the first place is that creationists attempt to minimize phylogenetic studies by claiming that because humans and chimps, for instance, look sort of alike, their DNA should be alike. But that says nothing of the patterns of shared mutations, nor the fact that, to date, no genes direclty influencing morphology have been identified much less sequenced and compared.
quote: It is no lie at all. Please re-read your opening post:
I will ignore for now the fact that you have yet to provide a single objective test for any aspect of creationism or Design, but the fact remains that your primary thrust has been your personal disbelief in abiogenesis. Your 'follow-up' questions all derive from your first. Indeed, your 'disclaimer': "If abiogenesis and evolution are separate why does one theory begin where the other ends? (abiogenesis ends with the formation of progenotes and that is where the theory of evolution begins)." says it all. If, you ask. Your assumption is clear - you think that they are not. Therefore, you deal primarily with abiogensis.There is no reason to deal with your laughable attempts to blow-off things like the fossil record with your amazing scientific insights... quote: "Here is a challenge to evolutionists: Please answer all the questions below to the best of your ability.Could provide us with the evidence that life could originate from non-life via purely natural processes? (HINT: there isn’t any: The RNA World and other origin-of-life theories. by Brig Klyce ) How could that be objectively tested and falsified? What are the alternatives if life could not have originated via purely natural processes? Why are those alternatives un-scientific? If abiogenesis and evolution are separate why does one theory begin where the other ends? (abiogenesis ends with the formation of progenotes and that is where the theory of evolution begins)" Emphases mine.quote: Irrelevant red herrings. Molecular phylogenetics is, and this should be pretty obvious, not interested in the slightest about mutations that are NOT passed on. How, pray tell, would a molecular analysis be able to assess mutations that were not passed on? Surely, you must know, as you are trying to make an issue out of it. Or is this just another example of what happens when someone tries to make confident statements in areas that they know nothing of?quote: I'm sorry - does this have ANYTHING to do at all with molecular phylogenetics and heritable mutations? This has become something of your calling card - write volumiunous minutiae on tangential topics in the hopes that .... someone.. might be impressed. It is a tactic. What you are writing is completely irrelevant.quote: More irrelevance, with a ref to the evidence-less prince of purposelessness Spetner thrown in for good measure....I'm getting hungry - where is that lunch, boy? quote: No, that is not even relevant. Why are you trying to conflate so many disparate ideas?The question that you want us to believe that you are actually responding to: "1. Do you believe that mutations are heritable?" Your real answer - the ONLY relevant one here: "Yes mutations are heritable." Thank you. The rest of what you wrote is, as I already indicated, complete garbage.quote: The naivete revealed in this response simply confirms my long-held suspicions. Joe Gallien simply does not have a clue as to what molecular phylogenetic analyses entail. This is not unique to Joe, of course. I have yet to meet an internet creationist that does know how such things work.If it were all up to a couple of specific substitutions here and there, then - and only then - would Joe's naive treatment have even a hint of validity. I suggest that the creationist at least try to familiarize himself with the literatue and actually LOOK AT some real data. I have provided a link to my website on which I have an alignment of about 13000 characters for a few dozen species. The patterns of mutation - in both coding and noncoding DNA - is striking. . quote: I don't know. That is just another move of the goal posts. I presented molecular phylogentics as objective tests of evolutionary hypotheses of descent, not as a way of plotting specific DNA changes leading to specific phenotypic changes.Whether or not a substitution is beneficial, neutral, or detrimental is irrelevant to Molecular phylogenetics. Whether or not the substitution occurs in coding or noncoding DNA is irrelevant. Whether the change is fixed or not is irrelevant. If you knew half as much about this subject as you portray yourself as knowing, you would realize the futility, shallowness, and naivete of your above post. So, again - where is it that you fed me my lunch?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1876 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: The incompetent rarely know it, often are even boastful, study finds...
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1876 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: As all of your 'follow-up' "questions" relied upon your assumption that abiogenesis is, in fact, part of (the foundation of?) evolution, it all goes back to that. That you may have mentioned (blown-off, really) other issues is really a moot point. To avoid allowing this to wander off on one of your nitpicking minutiae hunts, I will grant that I should not have written that you "Only dealt with" issues surrounding abiogenesis.quote: Yes, there is a difference. quote: Yes, I do. However, it would appear that you have limited comprtehension skills.quote: The embryo slide I linked to - the one you said was irrelevant because you were talking about adult whales (LOL!) - said nothing about femurs. It said limb buds. I suggest you look into the embryology of limb development to see what is in a limb bud. There is no "femur" per se, or anything else for that matter. Not in the early stages, at least. A limb bud contains the tissue precursors of such bony elements and the development o fhtese bones proceeds as development continues. At the stage of development shown in the slide I linked, probably the equivalent of human week 6 or so, the limb bones would be present. Continued development would result in the regression of the limb.The quote you provide from a link of mine in fact, as the careful reader can see, does not contain the word 'femur', so your providing it seems to be a red herring. I could be minutiae-boy and remind the reader that I had only mentioned Minke whales when I mentioned femurs, while the link I provided refers to whales in general. Here:http://www.seaworld.org/infobooks/Baleen/phycharbw.html we see that, in baleen whales, anyway: F. Hind limbs.1. In baleen whales all traces of hind limbs have disappeared except for two reduced, rod-shaped pelvic bones that are buried deep in body muscle. quote: Wow. Some rebuttal. Shame that this doesn't actually deal directly with phylogenetics, as you imply. Rather, this deals with assessing amino acid replacements. I guess I would going to far to actually expect a retraction of all that mumbo-jumbo from your last post, wouldn't it? You know - the stuff that didn't even deal with what you claimed to be addressing? bye joey
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1876 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: I can only infer from what is written. As I already wrote, none of the books on the topic that I have cite Kerkut. I have to wonder - which creationist web site had that quote-mined gem?Alternatives? What alternatives? Magic? Space-men? Superbeings? quote: if you can't see how embryology has a DIRECT impact on the adult form, AND can provide a great deal of information about evolution, then I suspect taht you are a typical creationist. Unlike undereducated creationists, or those with educations in totally irrelevant fields like computer science, students that major in biology typically can make the necessary connections between ontogeny, phylogeny, and anatomy.
quote: Some of it is on that page. It is called the fossil record. And, of course, what you just tried to muddle your way through (or out of) - embryology. It is a shame that you have as usual abandoned any substantive issues and are trying to pull the same crap you usually do and did recently at BB - run off on irrelevant tangents, prattle on about 'assumptions', and such, rather than actually support your contentions. I have to assume that you have capitulated on the phylogeny issue, at least I hope you have. You were really out of the ballpark - you weren't even in the parking lot - in your "overwhelm them with minutiae" attempt to deal with it above.This is really getting old. Unless you have something of substance to offer, I don't see much point in going on. Your personal distaste for the names of bones, the workings of the scientific method, etc., can never be dealt with in a way that would satisfy you. And in an important way, who the f*** cares what some creationist engineer 'personally' accepts or not on the issue of biological evolution? The BB censotrs cut some of my best lines to you (of course!) - such as my request that you contact all anatomists and zoologists and inform them that you, Joe Gallien, creationist engineer, demand that the bones in modern whales that are homologous to pelvi and hind limbs be called something else because you personally don't like the implications... bye bye joey
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1876 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Whenever it's evoltuionary fairtales it can't be proven. So what's the take home message? You guys may have jumped the gun after watching the diversification of created kinds! [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-25-2002][/B][/QUOTE] Fairytales... Jumping the gun... Well, TB, maybe you can explain to us all - with scientific evidence in support, of course - how it is that killing pigeons cures leprosy? Or, more on topic, what the 'created kinds' were. How many there were. How it was that we got what we have today from them since 'the flood' . Start a new thread if you want - I mean, you must have all sorts of verifiable documentation supportive of this belief... this fairytale, right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1876 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
I love the sound of crickets chirping....
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1876 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
Wow - Bart sounds like a rabid anti-evolutionist creationist with a supernaturalistic philosophy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1876 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
Hmmm...
Note the creationist buzzwords: dogmatic rapid anti-creationist browbeat Wow, bart.... Looks like the jury came back....
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1876 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Interesting stance, considering what you have written thus far... So, what is your stance on plagiarism again?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024