Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8945 total)
37 online now:
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Post Volume: Total: 865,352 Year: 20,388/19,786 Month: 785/2,023 Week: 293/392 Day: 24/129 Hour: 2/9


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   On Transitional Species (SUMMATION MESSAGES ONLY)
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2681 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 137 of 314 (605403)
02-19-2011 5:23 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Huntard
02-18-2011 7:47 AM


Re: Kind of The Point ....
Huntard writes:

Robert Byers writes:

Marine mammals are clearly land creatures that adapted to the seas.


Ok.

so indeed they kept remnants of this reality.

Yes, like evolution predicts.

Yet again however evolution believers use these marine mammals as case in point that evolution is true.

Well, yes. Even you admit that this is evience for evolution. See, where you use the word "adapted", biologists use the word "evolved". They're the same thing.

in fact it makes a damning case against it.

What is it? The sentences "Marine mammals are clearly land creatures that adapted to the seas" and "in fact it makes a damning case against [evolution]" are contradictory. I asked you to stop contradicting yourself. That would make it easier to understand what you are on about.

Nope. no contradiction.
The few cases make the case the lack otherwise is crushing to the claims of biological evolution.
The few cases can be seen from other minor mechanisms of change. i see them as innate triggers in bodies , especially after the flood, to rapidly fill the earth and so adapt.
Marine creatures clearly were land creatures.
So sure enough they have anatomical evidence.
Yet all other creatures don't seem to have evolved in any way and sure enough they no bits and pieces of foregone bodies.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Huntard, posted 02-18-2011 7:47 AM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Huntard, posted 02-19-2011 6:23 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded
 Message 140 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-19-2011 7:36 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded
 Message 141 by Percy, posted 02-19-2011 7:49 AM Robert Byers has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 138 of 314 (605405)
02-19-2011 5:40 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by Robert Byers
02-19-2011 5:19 AM


Re: Kind of The Point ....
Again. The marine mammals show clearly anatomically and otherwise physically/socially great evidence of once having been among the land creatures on land.
So evolutionism uses these few cases to make a greater case of evolution being true and undeniaable.
In fact that was your point.
Yet the few cases prove the poverty of the greater case.
not even 0.01`% of creatures have remnants of past bodies.

This is, of course, not true.

if evolution tries to prove evolution by vestigial bits then it proves its not true by the absence of them.
A line of reasoning.

But not a good one, for two reasons. First, you are simply, flatly wrong about the prevalence of vestigial features.

Secondly, the theory does not predict that everything should have vestiges of everything in its line of descent. What it predicts is that those features which appear vestigial should be consistent with the line of descent (as ascertained by the other evidence). That is, it divides vestigial features into two classes, the possible and the impossible --- it in no way implies that any such feature is necessary.

A challenge to the theory would involve finding a feature in the "impossible" class.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Robert Byers, posted 02-19-2011 5:19 AM Robert Byers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Robert Byers, posted 02-21-2011 10:07 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 608 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 139 of 314 (605407)
02-19-2011 6:23 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Robert Byers
02-19-2011 5:23 AM


Re: Kind of The Point ....
Robert Byers writes:

Nope. no contradiction.


Of course there is. The sentences "Marine mammals are clearly land creatures that adapted to the seas" and "in fact it makes a damning case against [evolution]" are contradictory. On the one hand you admit to evolution being true, on the other you say it can't be true. That's called a contradiction.

The few cases make the case the lack otherwise is crushing to the claims of biological evolution.

I'm sorry, what? This sentence makes no sense at all.

The few cases can be seen from other minor mechanisms of change.

Neither does this one.

i see them as innate triggers in bodies , especially after the flood, to rapidly fill the earth and so adapt.

Great. Care to provide evidence for those triggers, or should we just take your word for it?

Marine creatures clearly were land creatures.

Some were, most weren't.

So sure enough they have anatomical evidence.

Like evolution predicts.

Yet all other creatures don't seem to have evolved in any way and sure enough they no bits and pieces of foregone bodies.

Of course they do. Every "body part" around today is from an earlier creature. They don't look like their "original" parts any more, because they were changed to adapt to a different environment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Robert Byers, posted 02-19-2011 5:23 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 140 of 314 (605411)
02-19-2011 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Robert Byers
02-19-2011 5:23 AM


Re: Kind of The Point ....
Yet all other creatures don't seem to have evolved in any way and sure enough they no bits and pieces of foregone bodies.

All other creatures do seem to have evolved and sure enough they are made up of "bits and pieces of foregone bodies".

But these bit and pieces are usually not vestigial because they usually haven't lost function.

If you're descended from monkeys, and monkeys have legs, does that mean that you can or should have vestigial legs? No, 'cos you're still using them to walk on. Whales can have vestigial legs because they're descended from animals with legs and they're not using them.

If you're descended from monkeys, and monkeys have teeth, does that mean that you can or should have vestigial teeth? No, 'cos you're still using them to eat with. Duck billed platypuses can have vestigial teeth because they're descended from animals with teeth and they're not using them.

If you're descended from monkeys, and monkeys have eyes, does that mean that you can or should have vestigial eyes? No, 'cos you're still using them to see with. Blind cave fish can have vestigial eyes because they're descended from animals with eyes and they're not using them.

If you're descended from monkeys and monkeys have tails, does that mean that you can have a vestigial tail? Yes, and you do, it's called a coccyx.

Every animal is composed of "bits and pieces of foregone bodies", but most of these are not vestigial because they are still performing their original function.

The only case in which you could even hope to find a vestigial feature is where there has been loss of function. Even then, at least one of three conditions must be met. Either

(1) The feature still has some function.
(2) The burden on the organism is so slight as to be invisible to natural selection.
(3) The loss of function is so recent that natural selection has not yet removed the feature.

This said, there are of course lots of examples of vestigial features --- but only in places where the theory of evolution predicts that we're likely to find them.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Robert Byers, posted 02-19-2011 5:23 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18965
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 141 of 314 (605412)
02-19-2011 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Robert Byers
02-19-2011 5:23 AM


Re: Kind of The Point ....
Robert Byers writes:

Nope. no contradiction.

I see the same contradictions others have noted. I would reinterpret what you're saying as that the whale evidence might support evolution, but that the rest of the evidence does not, and that whale evidence by itself is insufficient to conclude that evolution happened.

But there are many examples of evolution as well evidenced as the whale, the horse being one that is very well known.

The few cases can be seen from other minor mechanisms of change. i see them as innate triggers in bodies, especially after the flood, to rapidly fill the earth and so adapt.

It would indeed be evidence against the current evolutionary model of gradual species change over time if there were evidence for a flood around 4500 years ago followed by species change radiating from the Middle East to all points around the globe. Were such evidence found we would certainly have to consider the possibility you suggest of "innate triggers" and so forth. But there is no evidence for a flood, no evidence for a world wiped clear of life and repopulated 4500 years, and no genetic evidence for "innate triggers" that would cause the kind of species change you have in mind.

Yet all other creatures don't seem to have evolved in any way and sure enough they no bits and pieces of foregone bodies.

The geologic column contains a fossil record of species change over time, with increasing differences from modern forms with increasing depth. That they appear to have evolved through lines of descent was readily apparent long before Darwin ever conceived his theory. Relatedness and the appearance of descent has been apparent to so many for so long that it seems perverse to deny it now.

And yet you do, thereby introducing yet another contradiction. You claim (in another message) that the designer designed in the nested hierarchy that is reflected in the evidence of relatedness and lines of descent while denying that the nested hierarchy exists. Odd.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Robert Byers, posted 02-19-2011 5:23 AM Robert Byers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Robert Byers, posted 02-21-2011 10:42 PM Percy has responded

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2681 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 142 of 314 (605744)
02-21-2011 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Dr Adequate
02-19-2011 5:40 AM


Re: Kind of The Point ....
Dr Adequate writes:

Again. The marine mammals show clearly anatomically and otherwise physically/socially great evidence of once having been among the land creatures on land.
So evolutionism uses these few cases to make a greater case of evolution being true and undeniaable.
In fact that was your point.
Yet the few cases prove the poverty of the greater case.
not even 0.01`% of creatures have remnants of past bodies.

This is, of course, not true.

if evolution tries to prove evolution by vestigial bits then it proves its not true by the absence of them.
A line of reasoning.

But not a good one, for two reasons. First, you are simply, flatly wrong about the prevalence of vestigial features.

Secondly, the theory does not predict that everything should have vestiges of everything in its line of descent. What it predicts is that those features which appear vestigial should be consistent with the line of descent (as ascertained by the other evidence). That is, it divides vestigial features into two classes, the possible and the impossible --- it in no way implies that any such feature is necessary.

A challenge to the theory would involve finding a feature in the "impossible" class.

I think I can address your two post replys here.

First. I insist there are few vestigial remnants. I say about 0-01% in any living or fossil creature showing a previous body type/life.
Would it make a difference to you if this is so?

All in all your saying evolution is fine with a lack of vestigial features. The point we are dealing with at this moment.
Evolution may not predict vestiges sticking around yet the use of them to prove evolution means its a line of investigation to enquire if they are about. if not why not?
What's so special about the few/ why if special are the few used to prove evolution.?
They prove nothing if evolution predicts a fantastic result of their being absent.
Anyways it unreasonable to say massive biology change took place from bugs to buffalos and there not be heaps of pieces of all or most or some or a great deal of the intermediate stages.
Evolutionism can't have it both ways.
Its a good point for creationism.

You can't say there won't or need not be leftovers and then use a few leftovers to demonstrate evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-19-2011 5:40 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-22-2011 12:02 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded
 Message 147 by Blue Jay, posted 02-22-2011 11:13 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2681 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 143 of 314 (605746)
02-21-2011 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Percy
02-19-2011 7:49 AM


Re: Kind of The Point ....
Percy writes:

Robert Byers writes:

Nope. no contradiction.

I see the same contradictions others have noted. I would reinterpret what you're saying as that the whale evidence might support evolution, but that the rest of the evidence does not, and that whale evidence by itself is insufficient to conclude that evolution happened.

But there are many examples of evolution as well evidenced as the whale, the horse being one that is very well known.

The few cases can be seen from other minor mechanisms of change. i see them as innate triggers in bodies, especially after the flood, to rapidly fill the earth and so adapt.

It would indeed be evidence against the current evolutionary model of gradual species change over time if there were evidence for a flood around 4500 years ago followed by species change radiating from the Middle East to all points around the globe. Were such evidence found we would certainly have to consider the possibility you suggest of "innate triggers" and so forth. But there is no evidence for a flood, no evidence for a world wiped clear of life and repopulated 4500 years, and no genetic evidence for "innate triggers" that would cause the kind of species change you have in mind.

Yet all other creatures don't seem to have evolved in any way and sure enough they no bits and pieces of foregone bodies.

The geologic column contains a fossil record of species change over time, with increasing differences from modern forms with increasing depth. That they appear to have evolved through lines of descent was readily apparent long before Darwin ever conceived his theory. Relatedness and the appearance of descent has been apparent to so many for so long that it seems perverse to deny it now.

And yet you do, thereby introducing yet another contradiction. You claim (in another message) that the designer designed in the nested hierarchy that is reflected in the evidence of relatedness and lines of descent while denying that the nested hierarchy exists. Odd.

--Percy

Well we would say the geologic column does not show a line from A to B.

I'm saying marine mammals did switch from land to sea but not from evolution by selection/mutation.
Rather instant adaptation by innate triggers.
Further they are amongst the few creatures showing in their bodies there was a change.
so this makes a case for evolution of having not happened as otherwise all creatures should show heaps or some remnants of previous body types.
Not the interpretation of present body parts being modified from previous body types.
Water mammals in making a case for anatomical change make a case there was no such change in most other creatures.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Percy, posted 02-19-2011 7:49 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-22-2011 12:00 AM Robert Byers has responded
 Message 146 by Percy, posted 02-22-2011 8:54 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 144 of 314 (605756)
02-22-2011 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Robert Byers
02-21-2011 10:42 PM


Re: Kind of The Point ....
I'm saying marine mammals did switch from land to sea but not from evolution by selection/mutation.
Rather instant adaptation by innate triggers.

If it was instant adaptation, why are there all those intermediate forms?

Further they are amongst the few creatures showing in their bodies there was a change.

But this is not actually true.

so this makes a case for evolution of having not happened as otherwise all creatures should show heaps or some remnants of previous body types.

See my previous posts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Robert Byers, posted 02-21-2011 10:42 PM Robert Byers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Robert Byers, posted 02-22-2011 8:01 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 145 of 314 (605757)
02-22-2011 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Robert Byers
02-21-2011 10:07 PM


Re: Kind of The Point ....
Your point is obscure.

Let me reiterate mine.

The theory of evolution tells us which vestigial features are possible under which circumstances, and which are impossible. The theory is always correct. This is evidence supporting the theory.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Robert Byers, posted 02-21-2011 10:07 PM Robert Byers has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18965
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 146 of 314 (605803)
02-22-2011 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Robert Byers
02-21-2011 10:42 PM


Re: Kind of The Point ....
Hi Robert,

No need to quote my entire post. A link to my message is already placed with your message, so anyone who wants to read it in its entirety can click on that link. Plus if you don't trim the quoted portion down I can't tell which part of what I said you're replying to.

Well we would say the geologic column does not show a line from A to B.

So would I. Why do you think that's a rebuttal?

Rather instant adaptation by innate triggers.

And your evidence for this is?

Further they are amongst the few creatures showing in their bodies there was a change.
so this makes a case for evolution of having not happened as otherwise all creatures should show heaps or some remnants of previous body types.

Could you clarify what you're talking about by providing an example or two?

Water mammals in making a case for anatomical change make a case there was no such change in most other creatures.

I suggest you stop saying this. It is clear from the number of times you've repeated this that you think it is an effective point, and as I explained in my previous message (the one you quoted in full, look at the top) I think I know what you're trying to say, but when you say it like this it doesn't make any sense. It's like you're taking the old saying "The exception that proves the rule" literally. Exceptions don't prove rules, they test them, which is what the old saying originally meant before the meaning of the word "prove" <ahem> evolved.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Robert Byers, posted 02-21-2011 10:42 PM Robert Byers has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-22-2011 12:37 PM Percy has responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 1010 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 147 of 314 (605823)
02-22-2011 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Robert Byers
02-21-2011 10:07 PM


Bugs to Buffaloes
Hi, Robert.

Robert Byers writes:

Anyways it unreasonable to say massive biology change took place from bugs to buffalos and there not be heaps of pieces of all or most or some or a great deal of the intermediate stages.

I strongly urge you (and all creationists in general) to get away from the alliterated/rhymed "from X to Y" evolution caricatures: despite the delightful symmetry of the literary device, buffalo did not evolve from bugs, and you're not impressing anybody with your ability to find two organisms that start with the same letter.

Snowclones rank among the least original and least clever literary devices, even when alliterated or rhymed: yet you people throw them around as if they're not only literary gold, but also of merit in a science debate.


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Robert Byers, posted 02-21-2011 10:07 PM Robert Byers has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8159
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 148 of 314 (605824)
02-22-2011 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Robert Byers
02-19-2011 4:47 AM


Re: Kind of The Point ....
I explained why it makes a great case! There are not pieces showing previous body types. there is with whales and so should with all.

Tens of millions of years from now whales may very well lose these vestigial characteristics. What then?

Maybe lions should have evidence of once having gills.

That evidence is found in the developmental patterns of all tetrapods. The recurrent laryngeal nerve loops under the aorta and then connects to the larynx. This is due to our fish heritage as seen here:

http://www.evolutionarymodel.com/apps/photos/photo?photoi...

Yet in the millions of years from bugs to buffalos, they say, the creatures should be filled with all kinds of remnants.

Why is it impossible for these vestiges to completely go away?

A designer easily would have a common design. easily giving everyone two eyes, two ears, etc. It makes more sense there is a program for all biology.

Why would a designer need to use a common design? Why would a designer be limited to a nested hierarchy? You haven't explained this at all. Also, some creatures have more than two eyes which falsifies your model.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Robert Byers, posted 02-19-2011 4:47 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 149 of 314 (605843)
02-22-2011 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Percy
02-22-2011 8:54 AM


Exceptio Probat Regulam
It's like you're taking the old saying "The exception that proves the rule" literally. Exceptions don't prove rules, they test them, which is what the old saying originally meant before the meaning of the word "prove" evolved.

No, it's from the Latin legal maxim exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis --- the exception proves the rule in cases not excepted.

For example, if you read that William IV granted the Royal Navy the right to drink the Loyal Toast sitting down, you can (correctly) deduce that the normal thing is to drink it standing up; because there would be no need to single out sailors and say that they could sit down unless this was an exception to a rule saying that people in general should stand up.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Percy, posted 02-22-2011 8:54 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Percy, posted 02-22-2011 1:49 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18965
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 150 of 314 (605856)
02-22-2011 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Dr Adequate
02-22-2011 12:37 PM


Re: Exceptio Probat Regulam
Interesting, I hadn't heard that one before. If you go to this link at Widipedia, it describes the interpretation I was using.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-22-2011 12:37 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Robert Byers, posted 02-22-2011 8:13 PM Percy has responded

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2681 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 151 of 314 (605936)
02-22-2011 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Dr Adequate
02-22-2011 12:00 AM


Re: Kind of The Point ....
Dr Adequate writes:

I'm saying marine mammals did switch from land to sea but not from evolution by selection/mutation.
Rather instant adaptation by innate triggers.

If it was instant adaptation, why are there all those intermediate forms?

Further they are amongst the few creatures showing in their bodies there was a change.

But this is not actually true.

so this makes a case for evolution of having not happened as otherwise all creatures should show heaps or some remnants of previous body types.

See my previous posts.

If you say its few then name the percentage relative to fossil/living creatures.!

There are no intermediate forms. There is just diversity like in the Amazon today. The ones that are in the seas are just a variety of the innate ability to instantly change. They are adaptating without reference to parents.
Seals today show this. There are types that walk better on land and types that don't. yet they all live together. tHey are not from each other. Though if found in a fossil sequence this error would be made by evolutionism.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-22-2011 12:00 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Taq, posted 02-22-2011 8:11 PM Robert Byers has responded
 Message 156 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-22-2011 9:14 PM Robert Byers has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019