evolutionary chain

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.As far as Neanderthals, it was clear way back in the 50s that earlier prehuman claims were wrong, but evos even today list Neanderthals as transitional, and until very recently, most evo depictions I saw illustrated Neanderthals as excessively ape-like. A better description of Neanderthals is that they were a distinct tribe of people.other false claims and erroneous logic:Piltdown man
claiming Pakicetus had webbed feet when there was no evidence for that
claiming microevolution equals macroevolution in an effort to suggest critics of evolution don't accept microevolution
claiming peppered moths illustrate ToE when they just show variation
stating the fossil record evidence supports evolution without doing macro-studies to see if that is true, specifically not showing what percentage of transitions should be seen and found if evolution is true
claiming Ramipithecus or whatever his name is, was more than just an ape and depecting him in the ape to human transition when that was highly questionable
etc, etc,...

For example, recent studies indicate convergent tendencies in DNA, and thus the question to what degree mutations are random is fairly wide open. So there is a lot to be understood still.The relevance of this is that when comparing similarities in DNA, the assumption is that more similarity equals more similarity in lineage assuming common descent. But if we are still learning about mutations and their degree of convergence/randomness and the mechanisms involved, we are still learning if the underlying assumption of interpreting similarities as strictly the product of common descent.Let's take some concepts of convergent evolution that are in the news of late. It is now considered that the inner ear bones in mammals evolved independently. The reason is if a common ancestor evolved inner ear bones and passed it along to all mammals, the evidence no longer supports that, and so rather than think, well maybe, they were created that way, the conclusion is this must be the result of convergent evolution.Well, we have a lot to learn about what drives mutations, and if there are convergent patterns within certain DNA structures, then that to me indicates that there are predisposed patterns embedded into DNA from the start, and we are getting into some sort of direction rather than randomness.You have not done this, but as an aside, this is what is frustrating about dealing with evos here. Most are unaware of problems such as I have raised above, or learned about from creationists and others bringing it up, and yet they are very sure we critics of evolution just don't understand it yet. But we understand it, and often understand it better than most evos do.

Can you please take this to another thread so that the topic that Christian started can be dealt with specifically?Now that you are an admin I expect you to be much more careful on this issue.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

It'd been awhile and getting so roundly criticized for not responding, I saw this thread and forgot it was off-topic.I'll abstain from posting anything further that's not on-topic.

ANd I hope the others follow such good intentions. Thanks.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Hi randman, just thought I'd point out that the Haeckel thread is still open if you want to discuss it some more. I know I for one would like to come to some kind of agreement with you on it.

randman, 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.MarkThis 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 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

quote:

---

For example, recent studies indicate convergent tendencies in DNA, and thus the question to what degree mutations are random is fairly wide open. So there is a lot to be understood still.

---

I have absolutely no idea what your opening statement means. I have reread it multiple times and cannot make a bit of sense of it.

quote:

---

The relevance of this is that when comparing similarities in DNA, the assumption is that more similarity equals more similarity in lineage assuming common descent. But if we are still learning about mutations and their degree of convergence/randomness and the mechanisms involved, we are still learning if the underlying assumption of interpreting similarities as strictly the product of common descent.

---

First of all there is nothing about convergence in mutations that has anything to do with the evolution of whales from artiodactylan ancestors. You are willing to believe that the bullae that surround modern cetacean ears convergently mutated in extinct protowhales like Pakicetus as well as modern dolphins. Again you show how little you know and how much you draw from ignorant sources.

quote:

---

Let's take some concepts of convergent evolution that are in the news of late. It is now considered that the inner ear bones in mammals evolved independently. The reason is if a common ancestor evolved inner ear bones and passed it along to all mammals, the evidence no longer supports that, and so rather than think, well maybe, they were created that way, the conclusion is this must be the result of convergent evolution.

---

Honestly- did you read that article? It was in Science and stated only that monotremes (platypus and echidna) may have inherited their earbones after the split from all other mammals (marsupials and eutherians). It does not change any concept about the evolution of earbones of non-monotreme mammals. If anything it only reinforces the anatomical and genetic split between monotremes and other mammals. Evidence of evolution from multiple lines of evidence.

seehttp://EvC Forum: evolutionary chain -->EvC Forum: evolutionary chain
http://EvC Forum: evolutionary chain -->EvC Forum: evolutionary chain

seehttp://EvC Forum: evolutionary chain -->EvC Forum: evolutionary chain
http://EvC Forum: evolutionary chain -->EvC Forum: evolutionary chain

Roger-Wilco

---

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

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

i think you are, but i won't make the accusation because it's possible that you just missed the post in the other thread and then subsequently posted four times after it. feel free to address it there.

---

אָרַח