|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: IC & the Cambrian Explosion for Ahmad...cont.. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Peter,
quote: 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Peter,
quote: 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: Based on the prediction that major taxa are related by common descent, & there should be specimens that are transitional between taxa.
quote: 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Peter,
quote: 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
SLPx, Edge,
I was being facetious when I called Archie a reptile. It was in response to;
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Perter B,
quote: 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Peter,
quote: This isn't a valid definition. You are failing to elucidate, specifically, committing a fallacy of circular definition.
quote: So, no, it's fallacious, & not "brilliant" at all. Try again. My comment stands:
quote: quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Peter B/ The Unartful Dodger,
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Peter B,
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Admoose,
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Peter,
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: Nonononono! You make your PREDICTION, rationalise it, & then we'll take a look. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Peter B,
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Peter the Equivocator,
quote: 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024