|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
You strike out my argument claiming it has been refuted. Then show me the refutation. All refutations I've myself refuted in turn. This is another reason for me to abort this discussion. See Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity, the thread where you go on and on, but never accept the evidence that shows you are wrong. Any discussion of your Genetic Fantasy Hypothesis should be done on that thread and not clot this one up. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Relative sizes in dog bones is not the same thing as the repositioning and other changes needed for evolution between reptiles and mammals. Size is regulated throughout the dog body type for all its parts. ... See Message 183: Now to me, it looks like a number of bones show "repositioning" due to their changes in size and shape, the Boxer skull in particular when compared to wolf or greyhound. Look at the shape changes around the eye sockets that show that the orbitals moved and take different positions. The jaw mandible bones also show different positions relative to the upper jaw. The back of the skull moves and takes new positions. The sagittal crest changes shape and is virtually missing on the Chinese Crested ...
quote: See Message 185: another set of drawings of the transition from non-mammalian amniote to early mammal:
quote: You can see this in the drawings, it is clear that the bones change sizes and that the jostling of positions is due to those changing sizes. Just as we see in some dogs compared to other dogs.
... The differences between reptile bones and mammal bones have to be in their respective genomes. ... A mundane trivial statement. The differences between varieties have to be in their respective genomes, the differences between siblings has to be in their respective genomes ...
... There is no way genetically for changes to occur that could change the bones from one to the other and so far nobody has shown an example that is relevant. So there is "no way genetically for the changes to occur that could change the bones from" the megafaunal wolf(*) "to the" boxer dog, eh? Really?
The fossils are not the evidence. We are looking for evidence that the different bones did evolve from one type to the other, ... The fossils ARE the evidence, the bones did not "evolve from one type to the other," they changed shape and moved, they were exapted to form a mammal ear, but they are still the same bones as in the non-mammalian amniote. Their history is clear in the fossils.
... or even that they could evolve genetically, and so far no evidence has been produced. Dogs again show as much variation and change in bones and placement as seen from one fossil to the next. Each step, each stage each intermediate gradation is no more change than we can see has occurred in dogs.
Which means what? There is no evidence to be found in their location as far as I know although nobody has produced information about exactly where they were found in relation to each other. Nearby or at great distance from each other? Enjoy (*) Pleistocene wolf - Wikipedia
quote: Look again at the graphic in Message 185 and the left hand scale shows the relative times of each group with some overlapping (older species continuing after new species formed). If you are really really really interested in the details then you should go to the library like that other creationist did and look - them - up, not sit in your armchair and ask everyone to do your homework.
I don't know, but I do know that you can't assume genetic relatedness from mere physical location or morphology, and again, ... But you can determine it from shared derived traits and coexistence in the spatial/temporal matrix -- we can do it with the dogs, and we can show that different breeds that were derived from other breeds occurred where those other breeds were located at a time before the breed was recognized and after the previous breed was recognized.
... I don't know of any genetic processes that could make such changes as imagined between the different structures over time. Then you need to learn more. Perhaps some genuine genetics rather than your Fantasy version. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : exaptedby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
And this is exactly the sort of scenario I keep talking about. Yes you can get some dramatic new phenotypes this way, and they will be highly divergent from each other. ... And yet the evidence shows that the dramatic new phenotypes do not occur just after the isolation, but over many generations, with some traits building on other new traits.
... But always always always at the cost of diminishing genetic diversity in relation to the parent population, within each separate daughter population. ... No, not "always always always" at all. Occasionally, there is an initial loss of some alleles, but this doesn't result in new varieties that can't breed with the parent population, rather they would be varieties already existing within the parent population. Equally valid are isolations that separate populations with the same initial set of alleles. In all cases the changes that occur arise from new mutations. Only new mutations can cause breeding isolation. But this thread is about fossils not genetics, and that discussion is better served on the Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity thread. We have the fossils and we have the spatial/temporal matrix. It is like reading history, any historical event occurs within a spatial/temporal matrix, without which the history is not understood, it would just be a jumble of random events without purpose, rhyme or reason. With the context provided by the spatial temporal matrix the events tell a story. You can try to change the fossil evidence into a jumble of random events without purpose, rhyme or reason by ignoring the context, but you can't make us ignore the spatial/temporal matrix. Just like you can make fantasy history by ignoring context, but you can't change what happened. All you do is fool yourself. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
I don't know if that holds up, ... And I see no reason why it wouldn't, when again it is a matter of terminology used. Variations within a breeding population, gradations between generations of a breeding population. As seen in Pelycodus, foraminifera, etc etc etc etc etc
... but the main thing I'd want to keep in mind is whether the gradation that is seen is anything at all like the gradation imagined between the bones being discussed that have to undergo changes from the reptilian to the mammal as the evolutionary pathway. That would take many generations at least, but my objection is I don't think it's genetically possible, and the dog breeds example isn't relevant. The dog example is relevant because it shows the amount of change that can easily happen to bone size and relative positioning. The variation seen in dogs is no different than the change seen between each intermediate form. Of course it would take many generations, just as developing the dog breeds took many generations of particular selection. Each intermediate would take many generations ... but that time is there in the spatial/temporal matrix for those generations to occur, many times more time than was needed for the dog breeds. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Yes, of course, as I've said myself many times. "Microevolution" happens all the time WITHIN SPECIES. It is only assumption based on the ToE that keeps on insisting it transcends the species ... Nope. That is creationist thinking, not scientific biological evolution. That speciation keeps occurring doesn't change the fact that all life belongs to the same species they were born in.
... What we SEE is only microevolution within the genome of a given species, we do not see evolution beyond those limits. There are no limits to what a species can be as an organism, but it will always be the same species it was born in. We see species change into new species, but curiously they are still a species.
Yes, even the new breed In fact it may have enough for hundreds of new species ... because you will say the same thing when each new species occurs.
Of course as the creatures dispersed from the ark this pattern would have been the most likely, small numbers of individuals breaking off from an established population, becoming geographically isolated at some distance as they found a niche, developing new phenotypes, becoming a new breed, and the same process happening from that base again until the creature was as dispersed as it was going to get. Meanwhile the earlier populations would also have been sending out scouts as it were and developing completely separate populations of new breeds. In those early days there would have been enough genetic diversity to allow for dozens, maybe even hundreds of new breeds. It's only in our time that a continuation of these processes can lead to genetic depletion in some evolving lines. Poppycock that belongs on your fantasy Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity thread not here.
I don't know what you mean by "why should it end today?" Because so far there is no evidence that evolution is stopping or even slowing down.
Where did I say any such thing? See above for what I hope is a clearer description of my view. Well you keep on making these long doomsday pronouncements I sort of expected that we would see some actual results, when instead all we see is evolution proceeding as it always has.
And your point is? That your "outrage" at speciation occurring is pointless. It happens, and it happens as speciation is defined, and there is no point to you complaining about it. Use the terminology of science as it is used and defined by that science: all you are doing is making yourself upset ... over a word definition. Enjoy by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
The dog breeds change AS A WHOLE, all parts at once, all the bones changing to conform to the overall design of the breed while still articulating according to the Basic Dog Template as it were. Dead wrong. Every mutt mixture of breeds and half breeds and feral wild dog proves you are wrong. That would be creationist fantasy transformation, certainly not evolution. Every breeder will tell you that you are wrong.
The ear bones would have to change too many things. The Eustachian tube is completely redesigned; the stapes would have to be complete reshaped and lose its root that connects to the quadrate; I'm not quite sure what's going on with that malleus /articular area but it is completely repositioned in relation to the stapes-quadrate and proportionally much larger in relation to them. I don't see how anyone can say the changes dog breeds go through compares at all. Argument from incredulity. We were talking about the bones changing shape and alignment, and now that you have been given the evidence of the dogs showing similar changes in shape and alignment you bring in a whole new aspect. The images show they remain in contact, so no matter how "remarkable" you think it is, that is what the evidence shows.
You don't see parts losing elements (stapes root), shrinking or expanding in relation to other parts except to a small extent to accommodate to the changing overall structure, or becoming completely different as the stapes did. Except that the dog images show losing elements (sagittal crest) shrinking (boxer nose) and expanding (brain cases). Curiously the stapes functions the same in both and has the same connections (from same source as previous post):
quote: So you keep saying things that just are not shown in the evidence. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
More fantasy poppycock that should be discussed on Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity.
RAZD you don't understand my argument at all. I've covered every objection you are making a million times over and since you don't want this topic to continue on this thread let's drop it. But first I have to answer this: Well I certainly understand that your fantasy genetics has nothing to do with this thread. The problem you have Faith is that not one person, other than yourself, accepts your fantasy. It's not that I don't understand, it's that I have not seen a single reason, a single piece of evidence to support any of it, and I've seen plenty to refute it: I see no reason to pander to it. It's based on a falsified premise.
I'd really rather not have to go back through that argument in all its details on this thread. No you do not have to regurgitate it on this thread. You need to take your fantasy back to it's thread. Period.
Yes the thread is about fossils but the thing is you can't talk about the fossils EVOLVING unless you can prove that it's genetically possible. Which has been done with dogs. Not only is it possible for the bones to change but it is observed and documented to have occurred in dogs. So that has been done, and we know that similar evolution in other species is not only possible, it is feasible. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I suspect that you think I'm wrong about something I didn't say, ... Or that you said something that you didn't mean. In any event this needs to be on Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity not here. See Message 991 Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Edited to move "genetic" PRATTle to Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity
See Message 992 on Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity for response to the above nonsense. This thread is about fossil evidence and how they show evolution, not about creationist fantasy pseudo-genetics.
Not only does genetics not work incrementally, ... Except we know this is false.
... nor make such just-so changes as those needed to get from the reptilian to the mammalian ear bones ... As evidenced by the many intermediate fossils that are in the spatial/temporal matrix at the right time and in the right place ...
... there is no need to change the reptilian ear, it works just fine. Nature has no reason to make a mammalian ear out of it -- that is, there is no selection pressure involved. No need to make a mammal out of a reptile at all. So why would there be any changes in that direction? Evolution does not work on "need" and you know this (or should by now). It works in incremental steps of improvement built on improvement -- better hearing improves the likelihood of survival, so an ear that hears better is selected over one that doesn't. Just as occurred for eyes and other senses.
ABE: Oh and another thing I meant to include: the basic body structure of an animal is apparently hard-wired into the genome, and so are necessary features like ear design for pete's sake. ... And this is you making stuff up that has nothing to do with real genetics. Stuff that we know is wrong.
... The ear structure is just not going to change and neither is the basic reptile body structure. ... And we know that that is wrong too.
... Genetics varies things like size and shape, whilekeeping the basic body design, fur, or scales in the case of reptiles? color etc. You always get a reptile. You always get a bear, though a small black one or a huge brown one. You always get a dog or a cat. The basic template is in the genome. Huge variations yes but it's always a dog a cat a reptile a bear or whatnot. ... Standard creationist PRATTle. You've been told how cladistics shows descent from a parent population will always be a member of that parent clade. The formation of nested hierarchies is what shows that evolution explains the diversity of life. All mammals have the "basic body design" of the common mammalian clade ancestor population, Huge variations yes but it's always a mammal ... ... which has the "basic body design" of the common tetrapod clade ancestor population. Huge variations yes but it's always a tetrapod ...
Random variation is what genetics actually does when there is no selection pressure. It's the most common way varieties and races form in nature. ... Genetic drift also occurs when there is selection pressure, on traits that are not being selected, but may be taken along for the ride with the gene under selection.
... It's the most common way varieties and races form in nature. ... It is one of the common ways varieties form. Another is via selection.
... New finch beaks. No reason for it, no selection pressure, it's just a variation possible in the genome and when that genetic option becomes more frequent in a population that is reproductively isolated, the finch gets a new beak. Then it chooses a different food that the new beak can handle. Which we know is precisely backwards of how it actually happens.
But then you've got those millions of years in there to make this reptile mammal thing happen. You'd only need those millions of years ... And we know this is false, both in the fact that the evidence shows that the earth IS very very very old, and in the fact that it isn't a matter of "needing" it to be old. That is more creationist PRATTLe.
... You'd only need those millions of years if you kept getting mistakes, unfunctioning ears. Lotta deaf reptile babies then. I guess they just died out or why didn't they adapt to their deafness? ... Except that the intermediate fossils show there was a fully functional ear through the whole passage of transition. So again you are wrong about what the fossils show and about how evolution actually works ...
... It would of course take time to come up with variations that maintain the necessary relation between the bones for a functioning ear. ... And we know that each generation would have functioning ears because evolution works by small incremental changes that alter elements but maintain function. Just as the jaw continued to function as it transitioned from the non-mammalian amniote jaw through a phase that had two jaw joints and then to the mammalian jaw.
... But there's no reason for that to happen even in a billion years. This isn't anything like how breeds form, ... It is precisely how breeds form, because it is how evolution works, gradual modifications from generation to generation within the breeding population:
(1) The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats. Notice how this applies to dog breeds, finch beaks and yes, even therapsid jaws and ears.
... this IS macroevolution and it's impossible. Except that is impossible because it ISN'T macroevolution, just more creationist PRATTle. In the biological fields in general and in the field of evolution in particular, macroevolution is defined as process of forming a nested hierarchy by descent of new species from common ancestor populations, via the combination of anagenesis and cladogenesis, and resulting in an increase in the diversity of life. This is often confusing, especially to creationists, because there is no additional mechanism of evolution involved, rather this is just the result of looking at evolution over many generations and within different ecologies. The process of anagenesis, with the accumulation of changes over many generations, is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis. The process of cladogenesis, with the subsequent formation of a branching nested genealogy of descent from common ancestor populations is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis. This means that the basic processes of "macroevolution" are observed, known objective facts, and not untested hypothesies, even if major groups of species are not observed forming (which would take many many generations), the processes are known, and thus they are by definition possible. The problem I'm trying to highlight here is that discussions of fossil evolution completely ignore what genetics actually does. Evo theory just goes on and on about how such and such changes occurred over those millions of years without knowing if it is even possible, and in reality it's just not. And curiously, the problem you are actually highlighting is that ignoring evidence combined with ignorance of evolution in general and genetics in particular, leads to false conclusions not based on facts or evidence, but pure imagination, with all the assurance of Dunning-Kruger effect ignorance. When every premise you use is wrong, the conclusions are invariably invalid. Garbage in garbage out. abe: The fact remains that the fossils bedded in the spatial/temporal matrix show just the types of intermediate stages that the Theory of Evolution predicts. Thus they are also evidence for the validity of the theory. The fact remains is that the only response from creationists is the silly PRATTle about them being just another species bedded in rocks with no actual relationship to the fossils before and after. This is a silly argument from a scientific viewpoint because it ignores the shared derived traits of the fossils, the progression of new derived traits from older fossils to younger fossils, just as it ignores the time-line of geographical deposition and the curious consilience of location location location. Curiously, this is also a silly argument from a creationist viewpoint because it requires special creation of these critters for the sole purpose of causing a false trail, created as a joke or a lie, a view of their god/s as jokers. Another case of garbage in garbage out. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : splg Edited by RAZD, : per admin request Edited by RAZD, : addedby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Yes it is not hard evidence as I've been saying. It is fossilized creatures embedded in sedimentary layers, that is all it is.
So now you reject the facts that Ned provided earlier. Faith, you're going to have to make up your mind here. Ned's list of facts is in Message 216. I just read it and have no problem with any of those facts. They are the hard facts; the theory is something else that is imposed on those facts. He did a good job of sticking to the facts themselves. It is fossilized creatures embedded in relatively dated sedimentary layers, layers dated by their positioning of one over the other, layers showing a time sequence. Hard geological evidence.
Message 216 (Ned): 1. There are layered fossil baring rocks all over the world. 2. Without referring to absolute ages or even specifying if they are measured in thousands of years or millions of years we can note that on a relative basis older* layers do not contain many of the fossils that are included in newer layers. In fact, with layers far enough apart in relative ages the fossil collections are utterly different. 3. In more detail: there are reptile like fossils in older layers than mammal like fossils and not the reverse. 4. In even more detail there are layers with reptiles like skeletons that have jaws that are not at all like mammalian jaws. In higher layers there are skeletons that do have mammalian jaws. In all layers (times) above a certain point there are mammal like jaws found. 5. Between the newest (highest) layers with no mammal like jaws found and the oldest (lowest) layers with actual mammal like jaws found are layers with skeletons with jaws that are intermediate between full reptile like jaws and mammal like jaws in a layer depth (time) ordered squence from less mammal like lower down to more mammal like higher up. In even more detail the intermediate fossils are found in intermediate layers, demonstrating an intermediate time between those above and those below, putting the intermediate fossils on a time-line from oldest at the bottom to latest at the top. And the fossils show shared derived traits that put them in a clade. Later (higher layer elevation) fossils show modified traits derived from earlier (lower layer elevation) fossils, with several traits (jaw and ear) showing modified derived traits of previously modified derived traits.
It is the apparent sequence which is interpreted as ancient to modern living things that is imposed on it that turns it into evidence. Because it is completely based on the subjective assessment of morphologies. ... And on their relative position in the time relative layers showing a time-line between them. Nor is it a "subjective assessment" because it is reproducible by different people. If it were subjective then there would not be the massive agreement among scientists that it is a bona fide time dependent sequence.
... Don't make up arguments based on evidence that is not available -- that is pure imagination. In addition, your vision of genetics is faulty as is being discussed on Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity.
...The idea of their relative ages is completely imposed on the facts, without evidence. No, Faith, it is completely observed based on the different levels of the different layers, layers that are hard evidence of the time sequence. Ignoring hard evidence does not make it go away.
Then explain to us how interpretations are intrinsically erroneous. They aren't, they could be correct, but they aren't hard evidence and shouldn't be treated as hard evidence. So when a creationist comes along and challenges the interpretation it shouldn't be defended with a wall of assertions that it is as good as hard evidence. It isn't. For a creationist to actually challenge the science they need to do science that challenges the interpretation, not just made up wild fantasies, ignorance and denial. Saying you disagree doesn't challenge the science, it just makes you a doubter. Until you have science to challenge the interpretation then yes, the current scientific explanation IS the best available.
The order is very suggestive as I keep saying, but it can't be treated as proof of evolution. I don't know why the pattern is so apparently consistent, but when there are other reasons to question the standard interpretation it can't just be taken as fact. Would you not agree that "so apparently consistent" a pattern is strong evidence that it is more correct than just a random pile of fossils? That the time/location/development sequence is validation of the Theory of Evolution, ... because it is what the theory predicts. It is hard actual objective evidence that the ToE does in fact explain the diversity of life. If you don't think it is the best explanation, then provide another one that covers ALL the known facts.
And I do often wonder just HOW universal it really is. Once you're convinced it's this ironclad proof of evolution you aren't going to be very open to raising questions about it. Apparently insignificant deviations from the pattern could be overlooked, rationalized away etc. ... No Faith, that is the creationist approach, in science these things get reviewed by other scientists looking for errors -- it's called peer review.
Do believers in evolution raise these questions? They've been raised and answered and reviewed and answered again. And they have found evidence that supports the answers, like the iridium layer.
No, for whatever reason there is a pattern to the fossils so when you understand the pattern you can predict from it where to find more examples of the pattern. I don't know how often your predictions pan out but there's no obvious reason they shouldn't. ... Often enough. Tiktaalik is one example of predicting the find of an intermediate tetrapod based on the spatial/temporal matrix that the theor of evolution predicted that such a transitional would live. Homo naledi and Au. sediba were also predicted to be found, as were a number of hominid fossils. It is pretty safe to say that no paleontologist will look in modern sedimentary deposits for ancient fossils.
... The pattern is a fact but its interpretation is still in doubt. It becomes a problem when there are other considerations that call the ToE interpretation of the pattern into question. When that "interpretation" continues to provide predicted results for each and every fossil find, it becomes more and more credible. When there is no other "interpretation" providing anything close to the same results, it becomes even more credible. And that is what a good powerful scientific theory does -- it provides the best known explanation for all the known facts, it is testable (each new fossil is a test) and it makes predictions (for new fossil finds) that also test the theory, and that validate the theory every time they are found to be correct. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Would you not agree that "so apparently consistent" a pattern is strong evidence that it is more correct than just a random pile of fossils? I've said I can see why it's seductive. ... Valid observations and solid conclusions driven by those observations and a strong theory that forms an overall explanatory framework are usually compelling. Let's look at some synonyms for "seductive" -- attractive, captivating, charming, enticing, fascinating, ... Now I do find fossils to be kind of sexy, but I find they way they consistently fit into the spatial/temporal matrix to be fascinating.
... But if there is no way to get from one creature to another Which is why evidence that bone shapes and the relative positioning of bones can change in relatively short time (as observed and documented in dog breeding), supports the evidence that this string of individual fossils, each intermediate in form between the next lower\older and the next higher\younger fossils, and showing that the same degree of changes seen in dog breeding, can also have occurred with those fossils due to the same simple observed, known evolutionary processes. We also have absolutely no evidence that there is some obstacle to evolution from one to the other, and absolutely no evidence of some other method of sudden creation that would place random creatures at just the right time, just the right place and with just the right intermediate structure, and make a string of such faked intermediate structures, to purposefully create a false picture. There is no theory no hypothesis that predicts such fakery. There is no known observed genetic blockage to evolution, there is no known alternative explanation that is anywhere close to being mildly compelling: these fossils support evolution and do not support any ad hoc creationist fantasy arguments. (ie - "We Have The Fossils. We Win.") Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : clrtyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
And even though it is not my place to provide evidence ... Repeated denial is not an argument. Evidence is required to justify a position or it is just hearsay blind opinion. Evidence can convince others that your view has merit, lack of it is grounds for mockery. Thus you are the only who benefits from evidence that substantiates your position -- that is what puts the onus on you to provide it.
... I have done so. Curiously a single word is not evidence.
Sacsayhauman quote: In other words there are known and observed construction techniques that explain the structure without the need for fabricating giants who magically leave no trace of their existence. Or, more succinctly, this is not evidence of giants, but evidence that a posited existence of giants is not required to explain the structure ... meaning that you still have not provided (objective empirical) evidence to support your position. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... what would be the best way to supress genuine photos of giants? A creative competition such as the worth1000 encouraging outrageous images and fakery. These fake images can then be circulated and promoted. Soon they will be as numerous as the genuine shots and nobody except the experts will be able to distinguish between them. ... So the best way to counter the giant hoax that perpetuates the myth of giants is to purposefully make fake photos and articles about giants existing ... Fascinating. by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
So the ball is pretty much in your court. If you don't know what a globalist is - YOU need to find out. If you don't know ANY of their plans - YOU need to find out. And if you don't want to find out - I couldn't give a monkeys. Good, so your attempt to derail the topic and bury it under a blanket of nonsense is done. We have the fossils, and they show clear evidence of evolution on a grand scale spanning billions of years with a global continuous pattern of development within the spatial temporal matrix, consilient with all other sciences. If there is a "globalist" conspiracy it is this: science confirms evolution, science confirms that the earth is very very old, science confirms that the universe is even older and still expanding, and there is no methodology no alternate narrative that has the consistency of results and the consistency of evidence. We don't have just the fossils, we have the weight of objective empirical evidence from all sciences. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Don't insult Dr Seuss.
by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024