Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8945 total)
31 online now:
jar, PaulK, RAZD, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (4 members, 27 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Upcoming Birthdays: ONESOlivia, perfect
Post Volume: Total: 865,376 Year: 20,412/19,786 Month: 809/2,023 Week: 317/392 Day: 7/41 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   On Transitional Species (SUMMATION MESSAGES ONLY)
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2503 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 272 of 314 (608533)
03-11-2011 2:07 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by Robert Byers
03-10-2011 5:12 AM


Re: Kind of The Point ....
Biology is about the biology of a living being.

Have you ever taken a biology course? There is a lot of study of species that no longer exist. How else can one see the relationship of a saber toothed cat to a modern species of the genus Panthera?


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Robert Byers, posted 03-10-2011 5:12 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2682 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 273 of 314 (609022)
03-16-2011 2:28 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by Wounded King
03-10-2011 6:04 AM


Re: Prestin -changeo
Well they said genes were the same on important points about sonar for bats and whales etc.
this still is a great point for like mechanism equals like genetic score and so its a later adaptation and its from innate triggers in the body and not wild mutation chances.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Wounded King, posted 03-10-2011 6:04 AM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-16-2011 3:48 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded
 Message 293 by Wounded King, posted 03-17-2011 11:31 AM Robert Byers has responded

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2682 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 274 of 314 (609024)
03-16-2011 2:33 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by Dr Jack
03-10-2011 7:18 AM


Re: Exceptio Probat Regulam
The point is that humans show how creatures did these things instantly at some point in the past.
its just obvious. bats simply being instictive creatures took more easily into their body systems what humans only flirt with.
I'm sure the mechanism for bat/whale adaptation , instant, to sonar will be demonstrated one day.
no need for unlikely time to pass by.
Sonar is no big deal.
I think all creatures and man can develop the same ability as bats etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Dr Jack, posted 03-10-2011 7:18 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by Taq, posted 03-16-2011 11:39 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2682 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 275 of 314 (609025)
03-16-2011 2:42 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by Dr Jack
03-10-2011 7:34 AM


Re: Kind of The Point ....
Mr Jack writes:

Robert Byers writes:

evolution relys a great deal on the fossil record. Without it evolution fails.

Again. Not true. You see, unlike you, I've actually studied evolution, and while the fossil record is used it is far from the major source of evidence. About the only exception to that I can think of is the bird-dinosaur link.

I don't see evolution being greatly based on biological research.
I mean by biology actual research of living life.

That can only be because you haven't looked. There has been a very large amount of research looking at confirming and analysising the theoretical side of Evolution by experimental biology; and vast amounts of work establishing the evolutionary relationships between organisms based on their genetics. This is, in fact, now the primary way of doing so; replacing the previous method based on morphology (which also looked at living organisms primarily).

Even Darwin's Origin - where modern evolutionary theory began - barely draws on fossils as evidence.

Your wrong.
Darwin INSISTED that without the presumptions of geology a reader was wasting his time reading his books on evolution.
Time is essential for the claims of evolution turing a ant into a armidillo.

if the fossil record did not show time sequences and so claimed biological sequences evolutionism would hardly have anything to talk about regarding evidence.
Read any school book on the evidences and they emphasive the fossil record as proof.
lets say its bout 55% of the "evidence' for evolution.
The genetic claims are very recent and morphology claims always included the claims of progression from fossils.
I think i'm right here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Dr Jack, posted 03-10-2011 7:34 AM Dr Jack has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-16-2011 3:41 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded
 Message 282 by Taq, posted 03-16-2011 11:41 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded
 Message 284 by Blue Jay, posted 03-16-2011 1:39 PM Robert Byers has not yet responded
 Message 291 by Dr Jack, posted 03-17-2011 9:38 AM Robert Byers has responded

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2682 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 276 of 314 (609026)
03-16-2011 2:56 AM
Reply to: Message 267 by Taq
03-10-2011 11:18 AM


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

no lie.

Yes it is Robert. Comparing the anatomy of different species is biology. To get my zoology degree I had to take a class called Comparative Vertebrate Anatomy.

you think your doing biological connections in studying fossils but your not.

We are directly testing the theory of evolution, as I have pointed out multiple times now. Testing a theory within biology with biological observations is called DOING BIOLOGY.

Then after a geological presumption is accepted that they are from many different ages you then claim that evolution over these ages shows a succession from a-B.

The mixture of features in fossils is not determined by their age. Archaeopteryx, for example, is transitional because it has dinosaur features not found in modern birds and bird features not found in dinosaurs. This statement is NOT BASED ON ANY GEOLOGIC "PRESUMPTIONS".

If they were buried all at once and simply there was segregation in the burying from different water flows then all ones looking at is a diversity like in the amazon or amongst the cichlid fishes.

Instead of inventing fantasies why don't you actually provide evidence for your claims.

Biology is about the biology of a living being.

You are aware that fossils were once alive, aren't you?

The operative word is ONCE. if not alive and stripped down to mere bone/cast of bone one has no biology anymore.
biology is about the glorious biological systems of living life. its not about mere remains from simple bone creations. The creatures are dead because of the ending of biological systems and their complete decay.
You are not doing biology in studying fossils.
You are simply drawing conclusions about former biological systems located in individual creatures.

comparing anatomy, by way of fossils, is just comparing a special case of bone material remains. its not biology or zoology .
Why do you think it is?

biology demand tools and opportunity to examine actual biological life.
evolution has never done this relative to its great claims.
Casts of skeletons of former life in rock strata claims of progressive time intervals can not invoke the prestige of biologists who deal with life systems before our eyes.
This is a logical flaw of evolution in any claim of using biological evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Taq, posted 03-10-2011 11:18 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-16-2011 3:42 AM Robert Byers has responded
 Message 280 by Taq, posted 03-16-2011 11:36 AM Robert Byers has responded
 Message 283 by Coyote, posted 03-16-2011 12:15 PM Robert Byers has responded

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


(1)
Message 277 of 314 (609029)
03-16-2011 3:41 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by Robert Byers
03-16-2011 2:42 AM


Re: Kind of The Point ....
Darwin INSISTED that without the presumptions of geology a reader was wasting his time reading his books on evolution.

Quote, please.

if the fossil record did not show time sequences and so claimed biological sequences evolutionism would hardly have anything to talk about regarding evidence.

Apart from biogeography, genetics, morphology, embryology, behavioral ecology ...

Remember that when Darwin wrote there was no known case of an intermediate form in the fossil record. Yet he managed to figure it out.

I think i'm right here.

Sometimes self-confidence is not an admirable trait.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Robert Byers, posted 03-16-2011 2:42 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

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


(1)
Message 278 of 314 (609030)
03-16-2011 3:42 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by Robert Byers
03-16-2011 2:56 AM


Re: Kind of The Point ....
The operative word is ONCE. if not alive and stripped down to mere bone/cast of bone one has no biology anymore.
biology is about the glorious biological systems of living life. its not about mere remains from simple bone creations. The creatures are dead because of the ending of biological systems and their complete decay.
You are not doing biology in studying fossils.
You are simply drawing conclusions about former biological systems located in individual creatures.

comparing anatomy, by way of fossils, is just comparing a special case of bone material remains. its not biology or zoology .
Why do you think it is?

biology demand tools and opportunity to examine actual biological life.
evolution has never done this relative to its great claims.
Casts of skeletons of former life in rock strata claims of progressive time intervals can not invoke the prestige of biologists who deal with life systems before our eyes.
This is a logical flaw of evolution in any claim of using biological evidence.

It is possible that biologists have a better grasp of what biology is than you do.

Clearly evidence concerning past species is information about biology. Is it not a statement about biology to say that (for example) stegosaurs once lived and roamed the earth? To say what they ate and what preyed on them? How they walked? How they cared for their eggs? These are essentially biological questions.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Robert Byers, posted 03-16-2011 2:56 AM Robert Byers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by Robert Byers, posted 03-17-2011 1:15 AM Dr Adequate has responded

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


Message 279 of 314 (609031)
03-16-2011 3:48 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by Robert Byers
03-16-2011 2:28 AM


Re: Prestin -changeo
Well they said genes were the same on important points about sonar for bats and whales etc.

Where "they" are journalists who wouldn't recognize a gene if it bit them in the butt.

this still is a great point for like mechanism equals like genetic score and so its a later adaptation and its from innate triggers in the body and not wild mutation chances.

So would you accept all the massive differences in the sonar mechanisms as being evidence against ... er ... whatever it is you're talking about?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Robert Byers, posted 03-16-2011 2:28 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

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


Message 280 of 314 (609069)
03-16-2011 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by Robert Byers
03-16-2011 2:56 AM


Re: Kind of The Point ....
The operative word is ONCE. if not alive and stripped down to mere bone/cast of bone one has no biology anymore.

Yes, it does. The articulation of bones tells us the range of motion for each joint. Rough spots on the bones tell us where muscles were anchored, and the size of the anchoring point tells us the size of the muscle. Bumps and ridges in the cranium tell us about the size of specific parts of the brain which directly relates to how the animal functioned. Features in the vertebrae of some dinosaurs tell us that they probably had an air sac type lung system like modern birds. There is a MASSIVE amount of data that one can draw from fossils, and all of it relates to how the animal worked and lived.

You are not doing biology in studying fossils.

That is a flat out lie, Robert. Perhaps you should actually attend a biology class at a university some time instead of telling scientists what their job is.

biology demand tools and opportunity to examine actual biological life.

Dinosaurs were not biological life? If you dissect a dead frog does that mean you are not doing biology because the frog is dead?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Robert Byers, posted 03-16-2011 2:56 AM Robert Byers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by Robert Byers, posted 03-17-2011 1:28 AM Taq has responded

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


Message 281 of 314 (609070)
03-16-2011 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by Robert Byers
03-16-2011 2:33 AM


Re: Exceptio Probat Regulam
The point is that humans show how creatures did these things instantly at some point in the past.
its just obvious. bats simply being instictive creatures took more easily into their body systems what humans only flirt with.

What fantasy world do you live in? Do you think skydivers start to grow wings or something? Wake up Robert, and join the rest of us in reality.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Robert Byers, posted 03-16-2011 2:33 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

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


Message 282 of 314 (609072)
03-16-2011 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by Robert Byers
03-16-2011 2:42 AM


Re: Kind of The Point ....
Darwin INSISTED that without the presumptions of geology a reader was wasting his time reading his books on evolution.

And once again you have to distort science to support your arguments. Darwin insisted that without the CONCLUSIONS of geology that it was a waste of time. Not presumptions. CONCLUSIONS. If you want to challenge those conclusions do so in another thread.

if the fossil record did not show time sequences and so claimed biological sequences evolutionism would hardly have anything to talk about regarding evidence.

It does show a time sequence. All of the data supports it. If you want to argue the point then deal with the data. Tell us why we can not find an Australopithecine in strata that dates 100 million years old.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Robert Byers, posted 03-16-2011 2:42 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 419 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 283 of 314 (609077)
03-16-2011 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by Robert Byers
03-16-2011 2:56 AM


Re: Kind of The Point ....
You are not doing biology in studying fossils.
You are simply drawing conclusions about former biological systems located in individual creatures.

comparing anatomy, by way of fossils, is just comparing a special case of bone material remains. its not biology or zoology.

You are wrong in everything you say here.

And yes, I am a bone expert. From bones I can tell a great deal about the individuals and how they lived. Age, sex, height, build, pathological conditions, injuries, diet, and sometimes even probable cause of death can all be told from bones. Using DNA we can tell a great deal about lineages and relationships. Specialists can tell a whole lot more than just the basics I've mentioned above.

And that information, in turn, can be used to study anthropology, paleodemography, migration patterns, and a host of other specialized fields--including aspects of biology and zoology.

(You are trying to substitute fervent religious belief for real-world knowledge. It isn't working. See tagline.)


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Robert Byers, posted 03-16-2011 2:56 AM Robert Byers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Robert Byers, posted 03-17-2011 1:32 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 1011 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 284 of 314 (609083)
03-16-2011 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by Robert Byers
03-16-2011 2:42 AM


Antadillo?
Hi, Robert.

Robert Byers writes:

Time is essential for the claims of evolution turing a ant into a armidillo.

Good grief, Robert: armadillos did not evolve from ants.
Evolution does not make any claims about ants turning into armadillos.
Stop picking your examples based on what letter of the alphabet they start with!

But, if you absolutely have to pick specific "simple" and "complex" animals for future examples, please bear in mind the fact that insects are considered one of the most complex types of animals.


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

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Robert Byers, posted 03-16-2011 2:42 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by arachnophilia, posted 03-16-2011 1:57 PM Blue Jay has acknowledged this reply

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 291 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 285 of 314 (609089)
03-16-2011 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by Blue Jay
03-16-2011 1:39 PM


Re: Antadillo?
Bluejay writes:

Good grief, Robert: armadillos did not evolve from ants.
Evolution does not make any claims about ants turning into armadillos.
Stop picking your examples based on what letter of the alphabet they start with!

"anteater" would have been a much better choice. at least anteaters (and sloths) and armadillos are in the same superorder of mammals.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Blue Jay, posted 03-16-2011 1:39 PM Blue Jay has acknowledged this reply

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2682 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 286 of 314 (609146)
03-17-2011 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by Dr Adequate
03-16-2011 3:42 AM


Re: Kind of The Point ....
Yet its not biology. Its just questions about some critter.
Biology is about a serious investigation into actual fantastic living organisms.
It only has the prestige of biological investigation if it actually investigates biological process and results.
Anything to do with fossils is about conclusions of a biological nature without biological investigation.
Its gotta have life tissue/organs/being on it. it can't be about casts of minor bone details.
Biology isn't being done where geology and casts therein are the only things to be studied.
This has been a great flaw of evolution to usurp a actual science's name when all it is but just a historical subject.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-16-2011 3:42 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-17-2011 2:01 AM Robert Byers has not yet 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