Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   evolutionary chain
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 28 of 204 (256696)
11-04-2005 3:58 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Christian
11-03-2005 6:07 PM


Christian,
Maybe you can tell me what percentage of species living today are seen in the fossil record.
Given the number of living species known in the fossil record is near zero, the figure is probably very low. Take passenger pigeons, for example. They numbered in their billions at any given time, not a single fossil example is known to us.
Mark

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Christian, posted 11-03-2005 6:07 PM Christian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Christian, posted 11-14-2005 5:02 PM mark24 has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 113 of 204 (260154)
11-16-2005 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by randman
11-16-2005 1:22 AM


Re: recycled creationist mumbo-jumbo
Randman,
Actually, every thing I mentioned is true, and even though evos claim to refute them just as they justified Haeckel's forgeries, anyone can look into the data for themselves and see that things like Haeckel's forgeries are real, that Neanderthals were not subhuman and ape-like, etc,...
Actually, anyone can examine the evidence & see that the conclusions drawn from embryological homology are perfectly valid, in spite of Haeckel's drawnings. It therefore follows that anyone with an ounce of reason will see this anti-evolutionary argument to be what it is: a Red Herring. A bit like claiming Christianity is false because the Turin Shroud was a hoax.
Furthermore, interpretations of Neanderthal skeletons was also perfectly valid, based on the information they had at the time. More data means better interpretations, which is exactly the same in in the rest of science. Was the atomic Plum-Pudding theory a lie? No, of course it wasn't, it was an interpretation based on the data had at the time that was subsequently improved upon.
Other than Haeckel's drawings I can only think of one other lie in support of evolution. I forget the chaps name, but he was a 19th century Frenchman who played fast & loose with trilobite bearing strata in Indochina. He was discovered by other French scientists & scientifically ostracised.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by randman, posted 11-16-2005 1:22 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by randman, posted 11-18-2005 9:06 PM mark24 has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 127 of 204 (261201)
11-19-2005 4:58 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by randman
11-18-2005 9:06 PM


Re: recycled creationist mumbo-jumbo
randman,
Mark, it's tiresome to read you deliberate dodge my points and misrepresent me, which is just going to result more and more in ignoring you.
The conclusions contained specific errors I mention, which you ignore. Here are 2.
1. Error one: claiming a phylotypic stage as an observed fact when it was a mere hypothesis, and then using the hypothesis claiming it was an observed fact to make further hypothesis off of.
2. Error two: claiming human gill slits.
This does not even deal with the error of falsely maintaining well after it was exposed that ontology recapitulates phylogeny.
So since my points are valid, it therefore follows that anyone with an ounce of reason will see your argument to be what it is: a Red Herring, an effort to avoid discussing the facts raised.
Pay attention, randman. The point I was making was that all of the conclusions made from Haeckel's drawings can be made from examinations of the real thing, ergo, no evolutionary conclusions get retracted because of his false drawings. It is therefore a red herring to bring up Haeckel's drawings as evidence against evolution. Just to be clear, a red herring is, "any argument in which the premisses are logically unrelated to the conclusion". The truth or falsity of those conclusions is irrelevent, the salient point is that no conclusions were made from the drawings that could not be made from examinations of the real thing, & Haeckel is innocent of leading anyone to false conclusions because his drawings were exagerrated. Evolution has not been falsely informed by Haeckel, the conclusions via homology can be made without his drawings. Ergo, you commit a red herring logical fallacy if you attack the theory of evolution in this way.
Now, I have been falsely accused of misrepresenting you AGAIN. let's have a little look at your representations in the last day or two, shall we?
#1 I was falsely accused of attacking the bible.
#2 Both I & PaulK were accused of stances that ruled out theistic evolution.
#3 You misrepresented my argument to mean that no erroneous conclusions could be drawn from Haeckel's drawings.
You are a hypocrite, in other words. What, are you going for the record, or something, it's not a competition, you know? So you can drop the arrogant, oh-so-tired attitude, I can adopt the same with far more justification than you, randman, far more...
But for the record, I don't use your actual misrepresentations as an excuse to cut & run.
Mark
This message has been edited by mark24, 11-19-2005 08:34 AM

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by randman, posted 11-18-2005 9:06 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by RAZD, posted 11-19-2005 8:19 AM mark24 has replied
 Message 133 by randman, posted 11-19-2005 7:05 PM mark24 has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 128 of 204 (261202)
11-19-2005 4:59 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by randman
11-18-2005 9:17 PM


Re: it is still very new
.
This message has been edited by mark24, 11-19-2005 05:52 AM

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by randman, posted 11-18-2005 9:17 PM randman has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 132 of 204 (261232)
11-19-2005 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by RAZD
11-19-2005 8:19 AM


Re: topic
Roger-Wilco

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by RAZD, posted 11-19-2005 8:19 AM RAZD has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 134 of 204 (261353)
11-19-2005 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by randman
11-19-2005 7:05 PM


Re: recycled creationist mumbo-jumbo
I'm not cutting and running, Mark. I've been asked to drop this line of discussion from this thread.
So respond in another.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by randman, posted 11-19-2005 7:05 PM randman 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