Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   IC & the Cambrian Explosion for Ahmad...cont..
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 77 of 199 (30689)
01-30-2003 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by peter borger
01-30-2003 7:07 AM


Peter,
quote:
No Edge, they also has some fully developed birds, including the Archeopteryx lithographica, Sinorsis sinensis, and Confuciusornis sanctus. Very nice fully developed birds.
Archaeopteryx is a reptile! It has a pubic peduncle, a long bony tail, & abdominal ribs which are absent in birds. Some therapods must've had feathers, that's all.
The other two examples are from the cretaceous & are still less derived than modern birds.
Obviously, there's going to have to be a point where we stop calling a therapod a therapod, & call it a bird. But, just because we call it a bird doesn't mean it's characters aren't intermediate.
Post 65 please.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-30-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by peter borger, posted 01-30-2003 7:07 AM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by peter borger, posted 01-30-2003 7:28 PM mark24 has replied

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


Message 79 of 199 (30775)
01-30-2003 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by peter borger
01-30-2003 7:28 PM


quote:
MP: Archaeopteryx is a reptile!
PB: Yeah, and my dog is a reptile too!
Listen, Mark, by now you should be able to understand that I do NOT believe a single word of evolutinism from microbe to man.
Peter,
Methinks you miss the point. A "fully developed bird" has what characteristics exactly? Feathers? A keeled sternum? Hypotarsus? Abdominal ribs, etc? Since you refuse to answer the question, "what represents a transitional form as predicted by the ToE", it is difficult to take your objections seriously.
I have given you a definition of transitional form in a previous post, kindly do the same so we can advance the discussion, after you have looked "objectively" at the issue, of course, which you promised to do.
Whether you "believe" the microbe to man evolution"ism" (whatever that is), is irrelevant. The issue is, do transitional forms predicted by the ToE exist, or not. But, like I say, you need to provide a definition of the ToE's prediction of "transitional form" before we can continue.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-30-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by peter borger, posted 01-30-2003 7:28 PM peter borger has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by derwood, posted 01-31-2003 9:52 AM mark24 has replied

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


Message 84 of 199 (30809)
01-31-2003 5:33 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by peter borger
01-30-2003 9:45 PM


Peter,
quote:
Dear Edge and mark,
YOU are the gullible, NOT me.
Please tell us what you would expect a transitional form to look like from the ToE's perspective, ie, define it. You're beginning to to look silly, remember all those points you refused to answer in the other thread? That's why I stopped getting involved with your "GUToB", you make unwarranted extrapolations & then refuse to address any criticism, which you allegedly came here for. It's the same here, you're telling me on one hand that evolution is falsified, yet refuse to objectively examine evidence of it. That is; if you don't define transitional, you don't have to accept that such a thing exists. Fine by me, Peter, keep your head in the sand, but it's you that everyone can see equivocating, not me. I have done everything you asked me to. Your turn.
quote:
Pondering the Archeaoptehryx being a reptile. A transition form somewnere between reptile/dinosaur and bird?
Based on what I wonder?
Based on the prediction that major taxa are related by common descent, & there should be specimens that are transitional between taxa.
quote:
All, Archaeopteryx lithographica.
Why, I wonder, did we find 4 Archaeopteryx lithographica? Wy didn't we find the 'Archaeopteryx pseudornis', the Archaeopteryx ornis, and the Archaeopteryx euornis. Than you would have had a compelling case for evolutionism. Now you have nothing, except the Archaeopteryx (MPG).
What about Archaeopterix bavarica does that count (Wellnhofer 1993)? Well, that's that cleared up, Peter agrees we have a compelling case for evolution. And you are conveniently forgetting the other feathered transitionals, Sinosauropteryx, Caudipteryx, Protoarchaopteryx et al. Plus the dromaeosaurs like Deinonychus & "Fuzzy-raptor" with their "unbranched integumentary structures" & "perfectly preserved downy feathers".
So, last chance to be taken seriously; define transitional form as predicted by the ToE.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-31-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by peter borger, posted 01-30-2003 9:45 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by peter borger, posted 01-31-2003 7:25 AM mark24 has replied

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


Message 86 of 199 (30814)
01-31-2003 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by peter borger
01-31-2003 7:25 AM


Peter,
quote:
PB: The A bavarica is simply a specimen that demonstrates more details than the other specimen. Or as stated by the German expert Dr Milner
That would be "different details" that warrant the specimen being given it's own special taxon.
Archaeopterix bavarica has been given it's own species designation within the genus. The reason for this is because it is an adult bird as indicated by it's ossified sternum, & is distinctively small relative to an adult lithographica It's legs & tibia are proportionately longer, too. It has nothing to do with how well it has been preserved. The other 6 specimens appear to be different ages of the same species.
You're still ignoring the other species, & you still haven't defined "transitional form" in a ToE context.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-31-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by peter borger, posted 01-31-2003 7:25 AM peter borger has not replied

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


Message 92 of 199 (30846)
01-31-2003 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by derwood
01-31-2003 9:52 AM


SLPx, Edge,
I was being facetious when I called Archie a reptile. It was in response to;
quote:
No Edge, they also has some fully developed birds, including the Archeopteryx lithographica, Sinorsis sinensis, and Confuciusornis sanctus. Very nice fully developed birds.
The point being that Mr Borger was oversimplifying the situation, in that there were two options, 1/It was a fully developed bird, & 2/ It was a fully developed reptile, rather than seeing the continuum of forms tha SLPx speaks of. If he can say "it's a fully developed bird", the issue rests there, but he has to ignore the intermediate-ness of those forms. By pointing out the reptilian features I could place it either as a bird, or a reptile in PB's two option reductio ad absurdum scenario, so why not a reptile, it has reptilian features? What PB was supposed to see was that he had missed the point.
I wonder how many more posts Peter will refuse to state his definition of "transitional form" as predicted by the real ToE, yet continue to assert such a thing doesn't exist?
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by derwood, posted 01-31-2003 9:52 AM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by derwood, posted 01-31-2003 12:12 PM mark24 has not replied
 Message 94 by peter borger, posted 01-31-2003 9:36 PM mark24 has not replied

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


Message 103 of 199 (30956)
02-01-2003 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Andya Primanda
02-01-2003 10:01 AM


Andya,
Birds & reptiles are in the same phylum, it'll be interesting to learn how Peter would trace the ancestry of the "MPG" of these 2 clades, though.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Andya Primanda, posted 02-01-2003 10:01 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

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


Message 112 of 199 (31647)
02-07-2003 4:21 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by peter borger
02-06-2003 11:14 PM


Perter B,
quote:
Off on a tangent, here? Why can't evolutionists never give specific answers to specific questions?
You have to be shittin' me!
For at least the sixth time, define transitional form as predicted by the ToE.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 02-07-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by peter borger, posted 02-06-2003 11:14 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by peter borger, posted 02-07-2003 8:41 PM mark24 has replied

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


Message 127 of 199 (31756)
02-08-2003 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by peter borger
02-07-2003 8:41 PM


Peter,
quote:
M:For at least the sixth time, define transitional form as predicted by the ToE.
PB: I already did that weeks ago: 'A transition form is a form of transition that forms a transition between forms.'
Brilliant, isn't it
This isn't a valid definition. You are failing to elucidate, specifically, committing a fallacy of circular definition.
quote:
Page not found - Intrepid Software
Circular Definition
The definition includes the term being defined as a part of the definition.
So, no, it's fallacious, & not "brilliant" at all. Try again.
My comment stands:
quote:
PB:Why can't evolutionists never give specific answers to specific questions?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
M: You have to be shittin' me!
For at least the sixth time, define transitional form as predicted by the ToE.
quote:
The Archeopteryx is a bird according to cladist.
And they are also diapsids, peter, a sub-clade of that is the dinosaurs, so they are dinosaurs, too. It's also a sarcopterygian if your really serious about cladistics. Although I'm not sure how quoting cladisical results helps your case, since the evolutionary lineage from birds shows they are clearly related to the reptiles, oop, sorry, basal amniotes.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by peter borger, posted 02-07-2003 8:41 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by peter borger, posted 02-10-2003 10:13 PM mark24 has replied

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


Message 133 of 199 (31928)
02-11-2003 4:10 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by peter borger
02-10-2003 10:13 PM


Peter B/ The Unartful Dodger,
quote:
MP: So, no, it's fallacious, & not "brilliant" at all. Try again.
PB: Talking about circular definitions. What about "survival of the fittest"? Darwin's brilliant invention?
What of it? I'm not arguing it, it's irrelevant to the discussion.
Now, define "transitional form" as a prediction of the ToE.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by peter borger, posted 02-10-2003 10:13 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by peter borger, posted 02-11-2003 5:14 PM mark24 has replied

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


Message 135 of 199 (31981)
02-11-2003 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by peter borger
02-11-2003 5:14 PM


Peter B,
quote:
MP: Now, define "transitional form" as a prediction of the ToE.
PB: Since you agree not with my definition why don't you define it yourself. O, you already did that?
An organism halfway becoming another organism? Who is going to judge that it is halfway? You? Or me? Evo's or creo's? That's the question. It all depends on the paradigm.
Er, I DID define "transitional form", but it has nothing to do with your irrelevant parody. If you want to see what it was, track back through this thread, I'm not doing the work for you.
Now, for the 8th time, define "transitional form" as predicted by the ToE.
We both know you won't, because that would be an admission that the ToE's predictions are borne out in the fossil record, & that can't be allowed, can it? You'd get caned if you actually defined it. This is the worst sort of intellectual dishonesty: sticking your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes, & going "lalalalala". The longer you hold out, the more ridiculous, evasive, & dishonest you look. & in all honesty, Peter, this is the only reason I continually ask you to commit yourself, it makes you look sillier, & sillier. Not that most posters here need convincing, but the lurkers have seen your evasion, they've seen your fallacious definition, & they've seen your equivocation. What will they think when you try to force GUToB down their throats at a later date? Not much, I'll warrant, they know how you operate.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by peter borger, posted 02-11-2003 5:14 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by peter borger, posted 02-11-2003 9:10 PM mark24 has replied

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


Message 137 of 199 (31987)
02-11-2003 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Adminnemooseus
02-11-2003 8:39 PM


Admoose,
quote:
Has this topic run its course, and wandered off into somewhere else? Time to close it?
No. The topic has basically remained on topic, maybe not the CE, but the fossil intermediate issue is still being discussed, well, I'm trying, anyway.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Adminnemooseus, posted 02-11-2003 8:39 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

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


Message 150 of 199 (32020)
02-12-2003 6:31 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by peter borger
02-11-2003 9:10 PM


Peter,
quote:
PB: according to you a transitionform is an organism that is halfway becoming another organism, if I recall properly?
You don't.
A transitional is a form that possesses characters that are part way between two separate taxa, &/or a mix of character between two taxa.
Now, for the 9th time, define "transitional form" as predicted by the ToE.
quote:
PB: I had a look at the fossil record and if the ToE has been born out of this record (18th-19th century is even worse) it must have been done by somebody with a huge imagination.
And of course you honestly compared it to what expectation, exactly? Your honest comparison between the fossils themselves & what is actually predicted by the ToE? I think not. Peter, your words are empty.
quote:
PB: It isn't 'lalalalala', it is hummmmmmmmmmmmmm. For a better effect of hearing nothing. Listen, Mark, as long as I am able to defend my position better than any evo on the board, I am allowed to do that.
No, it's "lalalalalalalala". You aren't even prepared to look at the ToE's prediction, if you did, then you might go "hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm".
quote:
PB: I only demonstrate that this is a useless discussion. It is always about definitions.
In order to have a discussion, the terms must be defined. Why do you think this practice is useless? How can you possibly have a discussion when the point of disagreement is undefined? How do you know you are even in disagreement, for chrissakes? You appear to have decided in advance of knowing what the ToE predicts. The discussion that is so "useless" hasn't yet begun, I appear to be the only one prepared to define terms so that the discussion can take place at all.
More equivocation.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by peter borger, posted 02-11-2003 9:10 PM peter borger has not replied

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


Message 151 of 199 (32022)
02-12-2003 6:45 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by peter borger
02-12-2003 12:00 AM


quote:
PB: If you are able to demonstrate an organisms that you qualify as TF in an evolutionary sense, then I will explain them from GUToB.
Nonononono! You make your PREDICTION, rationalise it, & then we'll take a look.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by peter borger, posted 02-12-2003 12:00 AM peter borger has not replied

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


Message 153 of 199 (32027)
02-12-2003 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by peter borger
02-12-2003 7:07 AM


Peter B,
quote:
However, if you have a close look at what he put together it is not a whale. It doesn't even look like a whale. If this is a whale than it can also be an 12 ft otter. If it is a whale it should be more like a cow.
Who said Ambulocetus was a whale, the name is merely an honorific?
Why should taxa that have ungulate ancestors look like cows? This is an old, old strawman, Peter B.
But, no matter, I'm sure all will become clear when you hand your equivocation crown to someone else, & tell us what the ToE predicts of such a transitional form.
What does GUToB predict regarding fossils?
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by peter borger, posted 02-12-2003 7:07 AM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by peter borger, posted 02-12-2003 4:56 PM mark24 has replied

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


Message 158 of 199 (32052)
02-12-2003 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by peter borger
02-12-2003 4:56 PM


Peter the Equivocator,
quote:
You ask: What does GUToB predict regarding fossils?
PB: The GUToB predicts sudden appearance of MPGs, (major) gaps between original MPGs and MPG extinctions if unable to reproduce properly and catastophes.
Well, that was one of the questions I asked. Interestingly you only answered that when you could give a glib answer.
So, we're into double figures for the asking of this question:
Define transitional form as predicted by the ToE
We need to define terms before a discussion can take place.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by peter borger, posted 02-12-2003 4:56 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by peter borger, posted 02-13-2003 6:19 PM mark24 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