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:   IC & the Cambrian Explosion for Ahmad...cont..
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 110 of 199 (31618)
02-07-2003 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by peter borger
02-06-2003 10:57 PM


quote:
PB: So, according to ToE "The the organisms that we observe are the survivors".
In other words 'the living creatures are alive'.
Brilliant observation!! (Talking about pleonasms)
Do we really have to take a theory that does these kind of predictions serious?
Well, some content was probably lost in trying (unsuccessfully) to help you understand the concept...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by peter borger, posted 02-06-2003 10:57 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by peter borger, posted 02-07-2003 7:08 AM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 116 of 199 (31698)
02-07-2003 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by peter borger
02-07-2003 6:27 PM


quote:
Page, you are eager for another devastating blow?
Let me know and I will discuss your socalled best evidence for common descent in detail and I will once more demonstrate your short sighted vision.
Masochist?
Does this mean that you want to bail out on transitional fossils? I guess I can see why you'd want to change the subject and avoid further embarassment. Better just to ignore the data, eh?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by peter borger, posted 02-07-2003 6:27 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by peter borger, posted 02-07-2003 8:32 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 119 of 199 (31715)
02-08-2003 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by peter borger
02-07-2003 8:32 PM


quote:
Edge: Does this mean that you want to bail out on transitional fossils?
Bail out? On the contrary. Nobody showed anything that is worthy discussing.
Well, maybe that has to do with your starting material. We were simply pointing out that evolution explains the fossil record that we know about. Creationism does not.
quote:
The Archeopteryx is a bird according to cladist. What else do you have?
We have features showing a transition from reptile to bird. We also pointed out that some have classified it as a reptile in the past. If this was the case, why is/was there confusion as to its classification? You have studiously avoided these questions and simply declared them 'unworthy.' LOL! That's convenient for you. I think I'll remember that one, PB.
quote:
A scull of a dog-like reptile? Doglike reptile? Reptile? Assumptions, assumptions, and claims based upon assumptions. That's all you have. Anyway, if you can show me the evidence, be my guest.
You have been given some of the evidence, and have chosen to ignore it without an explanation. Why should we bother proceeding?
quote:
PB: If anybody should be embarrased it is Page, not me.
You mean you are proud of your ignorance of the fossil record?
quote:
If you go to a watch a soccer game the looser wins, I presume. Yes, the evo's logic is amazing. And they are also famous for drawing conclusion (later more about that).
I don't know what game you are talking about. I am talking about your vacuous definition of transitional fossils.
quote:
Anyway, present the evidence.
This has been done. You have not responded. I am not going to go back on a wild goose chase and dredge up old posts meant for you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by peter borger, posted 02-07-2003 8:32 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by peter borger, posted 02-08-2003 2:36 AM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 123 of 199 (31735)
02-08-2003 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by peter borger
02-08-2003 2:36 AM


quote:
Edge: Does this mean that you want to bail out on transitional fossils?
Bail out? On the contrary. Nobody showed anything that is worthy discussing.
Edge: Well, maybe that has to do with your starting material. We were simply pointing out that evolution explains the fossil record that we know about. Creationism does not.
PB: Assertions based upon assumptions. I am pretty sure that creationists will not agree with you, and are able to present you a scientific alternative. Do you actually read their mails?
Really? You think that creationists will disagree with me?
And just what 'scientific alternative' will they present to us? I haven't heard one yet. Are you talking about something like the multiple surge, fast-slow, violent-gentle, wet-dry, rapidly-slowly depostion model of TC and TB? The same one they both say has some serious problems? Or are you talking about Baumgardner's catastrophic plate tectonics model that sterilized the earth 4000 years ago? This is the type of model that is usually presented by creationists.
quote:
From a GUToB stance I would expect that producers and reducers are the first organism to prepare the planet for the coming of man. And now you will point at the dinosaurs. However, do you know what function they had in the big picture? If yes, please let me know.
Maybe they just wanted their kids to go to college. Why should the dinosaurs have a purpose? Why do you anthropomorphize?
quote:
The Archeopteryx is a bird according to cladist. What else do you have?
Edge: We have features showing a transition from reptile to bird.
PB: Do you mean that you and your wife (?) have these features?
Another meaningful statement from PB. Nevertheless, we all have some features in common with both birds and reptiles... Just why is that?
quote:
Edge: We also pointed out that some have classified it as a reptile in the past. If this was the case, why is/was there confusion as to its classification?
PB: There is confusion because the paradigm is wrong. From a wrong paradigm one cannot arrive at sound conclusions.
But why was there confusion? Why was archie confused with a reptile? Could it be that it is a transitional form?
quote:
Edge: You have studiously avoided these questions and simply declared them 'unworthy.' LOL! That's convenient for you. I think I'll remember that one, PB.
PB: If you think that I am avoiding questions you must be new on this board. However, you are not, so you are obtuse deliberately. I never avoid questions, but for me some questions are not so interesting anymore.
Yeah, I know what you mean. The 'dust on the moon' argument makes my eyes glaze over.
quote:
Like whether Archaeopteryx is a bird or a reptile. It is neither. It is Archaeopteryx (MPG).
Really? Once again, your logic astounds me. Since it is neither do you think it could be a transitioanl form?
quote:
For instance, if we only had known the platypus from the fossil record it probably would have been 'recognised' as a primitive transitionform. It is however nothing but Platypus (MPG). I expect from the fossil record only the Platypus (MPG), probably with minor variations with respect to size of bonestructure.
Okay, just what would platypus be transitional from and to? You logic falls down here.
quote:
A scull of a dog-like reptile? Doglike reptile? Reptile? Assumptions, assumptions, and claims based upon assumptions. That's all you have. Anyway, if you can show me the evidence, be my guest.
Edge: You have been given some of the evidence, and have chosen to ignore it without an explanation. Why should we bother proceeding?
PB: Well, I like to proceed because I wanna find out whether evolutionism is tenable on scientific grounds.
BS. You have already decided. Your many earlier statements make this clear.
quote:
I say it isn't, and I already provided compelling evidence for that. You, on the contrary keep claiming things without provision of compelling --beyond any doubt-- evidence.
I am not a biologist, so I cannot judge your evidence, though I trust others here who are more knowledgable than I. However, your fossil discussion has provided no evidence at all, much less compelling evidence. And I don't even require 'beyond any doubt' type of evidence. I'm easy to please.
quote:
PB: If anybody should be embarrased it is Page, not me.
Edge: You mean you are proud of your ignorance of the fossil record?
PB: It would be nice for evolutionism that you could demonstrate compelling --no doubt-- evidence for evolution from microbe to man.
Oh great! Sure. Providing compelling evidence to an absolutist is impossible. THanks for the task!
quote:
Not assertions based upon assumptions, please. For stories I will attend a Dawkins lecture, so please keep it scientific.
This has all been done in the literature. Perhaps you have missed it.
quote:
Edge: I don't know what game you are talking about. I am talking about your vacuous definition of transitional fossils.
PB: What is wrong with the definition? Please point out.
Well, I don't feel myself to be an elementary school teacher. You will need to figure this out on your own.
quote:
PB: If it has been done that it must have gone by unnoticed.
That doesn't surprise me.
quote:
It should be clear that I do not belief a single word of evolutionism's claim that a random process gave rise to man from microbe.
Well, there's your problem. You only know the cartoon version of evolution presented to you by professional creationists. Try reading some mainstream literature.
quote:
It is a genetic impossibility.
But a paleontological necessity. There is no other viable way of explaining the fossil record.
quote:
It's been proven that I was right in my claim on NRM (still denied by the atheists on this board), and I will be right again.
I will leave this to others to refute. As far as I know this board is not about NRMism vs creationism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by peter borger, posted 02-08-2003 2:36 AM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by peter borger, posted 02-10-2003 11:28 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 124 of 199 (31737)
02-08-2003 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by DBlevins
02-08-2003 1:27 AM


DBlevins,
Welcome aboard. Hope you have some fun here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by DBlevins, posted 02-08-2003 1:27 AM DBlevins has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 130 of 199 (31913)
02-10-2003 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by peter borger
02-10-2003 10:13 PM


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?
Non sequitur, Peter. Did you want to start a new thread?
Or is this dodge just your way of saying that you won't give us a definion, brillian or otherwise?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by peter borger, posted 02-10-2003 10:13 PM peter borger has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 131 of 199 (31914)
02-10-2003 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by peter borger
02-10-2003 10:13 PM


Double post eliminated.
[This message has been edited by edge, 02-10-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by peter borger, posted 02-10-2003 10:13 PM peter borger has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 139 of 199 (31989)
02-11-2003 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by peter borger
02-10-2003 11:28 PM


quote:
Edge: I am not a biologist, so I cannot judge your evidence, though I trust others here who are more knowledgable than I.
PB: Trust others? And if they tell you stories? How do you discriminate?
Actually, it's fairly easy. I use what I now about my field and see what makes sense from elsewhere.
quote:
Edge: However, your fossil discussion has provided no evidence at all, much less compelling evidence. And I don't even require 'beyond any doubt' type of evidence. I'm easy to please.
PB: So you don't require THE evidence and you are easy to please? Well that explains a lot, isn't it.
Well, I was trying to make it easy for you. I just asked for evidence, not prooof. That was in order to overcome your reluctance to answer. I didn't say that I'd accept what you gave us. Why do you read so much into what I say and yet complain that evolutionists are simply connecting dots without evidence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by peter borger, posted 02-10-2003 11:28 PM peter borger has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 140 of 199 (31992)
02-11-2003 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by peter borger
02-11-2003 9:10 PM


quote:
MP: Er, I DID define "transitional form", but it has nothing to do with your irrelevant parody.
PB: Since you are the evo, you give me your definition and I will have a look at it.
Oh good. We WOULD love to have your opinion.
But you don't seem to get the point. If you do not tell us what you would accept as a definition, how can we ever give you the example you request? Actually, this is an old creatinist trick, but you do it so well...
[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.[quote] As opposed to whom? And is that a problem? What do you think the role of imagination is in science?
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.
Hmmmmmm, I guess I missed something. It seems to me that you have utterly failed on this thread.
quote:
PB: I only demonstrate that this is a useless discussion. It is always about definitions.
Agreed, as TB and TC have shown, they continually redefine scientific terms. That's why we keep trying to nail you down.
quote:
I remember a 'mind control' series called "A beautiful accident" and a lot of leading scientist were involved, including Gould, Freeman, a leading neuroscientsist, a leading physicist. And everyone was eagerly awaiting the debate between these 'wise' men. To provide an answer to what everybody wants to know: the origin. Then they started to discuss definitions. For two hours. Nothing was contributed, the answers not provided. There probably are no answers. So, make up your own definitions and provide your own answers. You will never be disappointed. And I don't mind.
Yeah, well I suppose we're used to people making up definitions as they go. Should be easy...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by peter borger, posted 02-11-2003 9:10 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by peter borger, posted 02-11-2003 10:16 PM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 176 of 199 (32370)
02-16-2003 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by mark24
02-16-2003 5:23 AM


quote:
Does any evo have any criticism of the following definition & defined terms? Comments welcome, even looks good to me is appreciated
"A transitional is a form that possesses character states that are part way between two separate taxa, &/or a mix of discrete characters between two taxa."
Character: The physical state of a part of the organism whilst it was living.
Discrete character: The existence of a separate & distinct physical state as part of the organism. Describing an on/off condition rather than a variable one.
Taxa: Biological classification of organisms forming a nested hierarchy of ranks. Any rank is relevant from Kingdom to species.
Mix: A combination of.
Part way: A condition between two extremes.
I would say that the lack of an earlier response indicates general agreement, but then that's just my definition of 'general agreement'.
The only thing I might add is that usually a TF shows up in the fossil record at an appropriate time to be a transitional. I'm not sure if this is crucial to the discussion at hand, but it is a factor that creationists usually have a hard time explaining and would rather ignore.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by mark24, posted 02-16-2003 5:23 AM mark24 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by derwood, posted 02-17-2003 12:26 PM edge 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