|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: One Question for Evo-Bashers | |||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Sonnikke,
quote: Please tell me how the fossil record fits your version of creation. If you are going to bring the flood into it, when did it end? The K-T boundary? If not, at what rough geological time (equivalent) did the flood deposits cease to be laid down?
quote: Logical fallacy: Argument From Spurious Similarity. http://www.cs.colorado.edu/...ptic/arguments.html#similarity
quote: What's an "archaeologically verified" document? Do we know the alleged authors had actual knowledge of what they wrote? Do we even know who they were? What creation event did you have in mind that has "archaeologically verified" documents? Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with. [This message has been edited by mark24, 12-18-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: Well, I'm not anyone else could, either, since know one but you knows what "evolutionism" is.
quote: So how can you not be wrong, but tell SLPx he is repeating falsehoods? Surely they are his interpretations, non? Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with. [This message has been edited by mark24, 12-20-2002] [This message has been edited by mark24, 12-20-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
and the latter part of my last post, Peter?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Sonnike,
quote: Really, & how did you quantify that?
quote: Then everything should be buried & fossilised as if a global flood happened, shouldn’t it? Why hasn’t it, then? Why are there transitional fossils at all? Why are there transitional sequences found in ascending order? How could that happen in a flood? Why do you interpret local catastrophe as global, when the same aged rocks elsewhere don't show the same evidence of "catastrophe"? Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with. [This message has been edited by mark24, 12-23-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Joz,
Quick correction, the dinosaurs were reptiles. Series Amniota, Class Reptilia, Subdivision Ornithodira, Superorder Dinosauria. It would be more accurate to say that the birds appear to have evolved from therapod dinosaurs, since Archaeopteryx (among others) share many synapomorhies (shared derived traits) with birds & dinosaurs. And before any creationist wants to jump in with Protoavis as a rebuttle, it shared NO synapomorphies with dinosaurs, is known from an incomplete skeleton (sans feathers) that many palaeontologists believe represents two different organisms anyway, one of which is a crocodiomorph type archosaur. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with. [This message has been edited by mark24, 12-23-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Shiloh,
quote: Why can't their be endotherm members of the reptilian class? Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Coragyps,
quote: Correct, but we have to classify them as something. But we're digressing, since crocodiles, snakes & lizards wouldn't be reptiles either, not just the dinosaurs. I've never been convinced about not being able to name paraphyletic groups. Why can't we call them the paraphyletic class Reptilia? It happens elsewhere, after all. Here's a related question, are mammals amniotes? Or is the amniote group paraphyletic? Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: Gaining Ground is sitting on my bookshelf, once Vertebrate Palaeontololy (Benton) is finished, Clacks book is next on my list. It looks pretty exhaustive stuff! Regardless, that's precisely my meaning, if mammals aren't amniotes, then amniotes don't exist because it is a paraphyletic group, just like reptiles, right? Do you see what I mean? Benton takes care to describe groups as monophyletic or paraphyletic, so I don't see why any cladistician should be offended if we accept that the reptile clade is paraphyletic. What should we call reptiles before birds & mammals diverged, if not reptiles? It seems a silly rule to slavishly follow to refuse to categorise post-bird-divergence reptiles the same as pre-mammal-divergence reptiles. Surely the point of classification is to identify synapomorphies, & group organisms into a nested hierarchy using those traits? If reptiles & basal amniotes possess the same traits, then surely they should be classified similarly, though as I have said, the group should be accepted as being paraphyletic. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with. [This message has been edited by mark24, 12-27-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Coragyps,
quote: ?? = Subphylum?
quote: I give up! Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Oh yeah, I hate it when I miss the obvious!
------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024