Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Defence of Intelligent Design
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 181 of 208 (80853)
01-26-2004 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by bran_sept88
01-26-2004 11:31 AM


bran_sept88,
In a study of 300 cladograms 75 % of which were found to be stratigraphically congruent. Ergo 75% of the fossils were intermediate. The study has since been extended to over 1000 cladograms. Put simply, the evolutionary assumption behind cladistics is tested to an unbelievably high degree. This also destroys any notion of the flood, & Whatevers beloved liquefaction, but since he doesn't understand the logical corollaries of his own arguments I seriously doubt if he'll be able to assimilate this.
http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/publs/Benton/1999SystBiol.pdf
"Stratigraphic Consistency Index
The SCI metric may also be summarized either as a mean value for each taxonomic group or as a proportion of cladograms that score SCI values of 0.500 or more, an indication that half, or more, of the branches are consistent with stratigraphic evidence. By both measures, fishes and echinoderms score better than tetrapods. Mean SCI values are: echinoderms (0.773), fishes (0.757), and tetrapods (0.701). Proportions of cladograms with SCI values $0.500 are tetrapods (100%), echinoderms (94%), and fishes (93%). For both measures, values for all three groups are indistinguishable according to binomial error bars (Fig. 3).
Within the sample of echinoderm cladograms, nonechinoids show somewhat better results than echinoids but not significantly so (Fig. 3). The mean SCI value for echinoids is 0.724, and for nonechinoids 0.849; moreover, 90%of echinoid cladograms have SCI values $ 0.500,compared with 100% for nonechinoids.
SCI values for fish groups are variable but not significantly different (Fig. 3). For mean SCI values, the order is as follows: sarcopterygians (0.904), teleosts (0.744), placoderms(0.741), agnathans (0.733), and actinopterygians (0.722). In all cases, all sampled cladograms show SCI values > 0.500. The rankings of tetrapod groups by both aspects of the SCI metric are comparable. Mean SCI values give this sequence: mammals (0.837), mammallike reptiles (0.729), lepidosauromorphs (0.714), dinosaurs (0.698), archosauromorphs (0.660), and turtles (0.586). The low value for turtles is significantly lower than the high values for synapsids, mammals, and mammallike reptiles. Proportions of cladograms with SCI values $ 0.500 give this sequence: mammals (100%), mammallike reptiles (100%), lepidosauromorphs (100%), turtles (100%), dinosaurs (86%), and archosauromorphs (78%)."
Mark

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by bran_sept88, posted 01-26-2004 11:31 AM bran_sept88 has not replied

Darwin's Terrier
Inactive Member


Message 182 of 208 (80860)
01-26-2004 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by bran_sept88
01-26-2004 11:22 AM


Yes I have heard about the domestic and wild horses but they were still horses.
Interesting. What kind are zebras, quaggas, asses and, say, Pliohippus?
DT

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by bran_sept88, posted 01-26-2004 11:22 AM bran_sept88 has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 183 of 208 (80866)
01-26-2004 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by johnfolton
01-26-2004 11:43 AM


Whatever,
mark24, I don't know enough about your imaginary sediment layers to argue whats in each one, too me, the liquefication layerings of the flood sediments and the fossils stratification within said sediments explain the fossil layerings, perhaps sometime I'll look at this all closer, to understand exactly what your saying, we all know some of the creatures of the flood went extinct, even today we have species that are now facing extinction, and no new kinds of creatures being formed, etc...
Good grief!!!
Look, it is all VERY simple. You are claiming that the Cambrian explosion is an event. That means it can't have been fucked about by liquefaction or hydrodyamic sorting, right? That means it was, whether you like it or not, laid down as conventional geology says it was. That means liquefaction & the flood DID NOT AFFECT THE BASE OF THE CAMBRIAN & LOWER.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND?
Mark

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by johnfolton, posted 01-26-2004 11:43 AM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by johnfolton, posted 01-26-2004 2:07 PM mark24 has replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 184 of 208 (80875)
01-26-2004 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by mark24
01-26-2004 12:51 PM


mark24, If fossils decompose, then the only evidence of the Genesis event would be only the creatures alive at the time of the biblical flood, and liquification supports there was no cambrian explosion fossil record, the creatures of the Cambrian event would of died, decomposed leaving little evidence of their passing, the fossil record is basically the creatures alive at the time of the flood, fossils that were buried, frozen, it doesn't happen naturally(fossils decomposes), it takes a burial, and the fossil record shows a world sediment deposition, etc...
[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-26-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by mark24, posted 01-26-2004 12:51 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by mark24, posted 01-26-2004 2:56 PM johnfolton has replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 185 of 208 (80881)
01-26-2004 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by johnfolton
01-26-2004 2:07 PM


Whatever,
mark24, If fossils decompose,
But they don't. They are a part of the rock.
....then the only evidence of the Genesis event would be only the creatures alive at the time of the biblical flood, and liquification supports there was no cambrian explosion fossil record,
But hypocritically say:
The very name Cambrian explosion suggests it all came on suddenly, which brings the question why is it not still exploding, the answer is obvious, it was created by Intelligent Design, that was the Cambrian explosion, the creationists would direct you to Genesis chapter 1, etc...
Clearly you meant that the Cambrian explosion was an event recorded in the fossil record. You now appear to be backtracking as hard as you can claiming that liquefaction actually eliminated any such artifact! When you meant that ID was responsible for the Ce you must've meant the Cambrian explosion didn't exist at all!
Please can you reconcile your two contradictory statements, above. Was the Ce a genesis event recorded, or not. You can't have it both ways, mate.
Good luck.
Mark

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall
[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-26-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by johnfolton, posted 01-26-2004 2:07 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by johnfolton, posted 01-26-2004 8:20 PM mark24 has replied

Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 186 of 208 (80885)
01-26-2004 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by johnfolton
01-26-2004 11:43 AM


Dear oh dear!
You're still banging your big drum about Walt's theory, even though he has to contradict himself to make his theory work. Can you really see no problem with this? Are you really happy to take the word of someone who either thinks granite isn't rock or has the face to claim that conventional theory of mountain formation won't work because rocks don't bend AND THEN PROPOSES AN ALTERNATIVE THEORY THAT REQUIRES THESE NON-BENDY ROCKS TO BEND? Can you really not see a problem here?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by johnfolton, posted 01-26-2004 11:43 AM johnfolton has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 187 of 208 (80916)
01-26-2004 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by bran_sept88
01-26-2004 11:22 AM


Not Exactly, chromosome count is the major factor
That's a factor in reproductive isolation, but nobody uses it for species classification.
You may be interested to know that humans have a chromosome which is obviously a fusion of two chromosomes possessed by apes. How would you explain this if not by common descent? Apparently there are natural processes that can change chromosome count in animals. (It's certainly well-established in plants, as you may know.)
You can read about it at:
Human / Ape chromosome differences

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by bran_sept88, posted 01-26-2004 11:22 AM bran_sept88 has not replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 188 of 208 (80923)
01-26-2004 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by mark24
01-26-2004 2:56 PM


mark24, I no longer believe the fossil record gives an accurate record of the Cambrian explosion, as the fossil record can only be a the fossils that were alive at the time of the biblical flood, given that fossils decompose in the natural, it does gives a record of the creatures alive 4,350 years ago, when this flood poured out the sediments upon the earth, with the flood waters.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by mark24, posted 01-26-2004 2:56 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Silent H, posted 01-26-2004 11:03 PM johnfolton has replied
 Message 192 by :æ:, posted 01-27-2004 1:55 AM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 194 by mark24, posted 01-27-2004 6:56 AM johnfolton has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 189 of 208 (80954)
01-26-2004 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by johnfolton
01-26-2004 8:20 PM


Oooooookay. Mark let me give this one a try...
quote:
fossils that were alive at the time of the biblical flood, given that fossils decompose in the natural
Watch your terminology!!!! Fossils neither live, nor do they decompose. Living things die. Some die in an environment where they do not decay completely.
Depending on the environment, parts may be preserved pretty much as they were in death (extremely rare and usually only for a certain period of time), and others have their chemicals replaced by minerals as the sediments they are within become stone. That latter process is what is commonly called fossilization. So a dead thing is only a fossil if you manage to find it because it has not "decomposed".
quote:
the Cambrian explosion... gives a record of the creatures alive 4,350 years ago, when this flood poured out the sediments upon the earth
By saying this, you must then realize the problems Mark24 has set out for you. There are only a set group of creatures found within the Cambrian deposits. This makes little sense if as you yourself say that it is a record of creatures alive back then. Where'd all the other creatures go?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by johnfolton, posted 01-26-2004 8:20 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by johnfolton, posted 01-26-2004 11:15 PM Silent H has not replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 190 of 208 (80958)
01-26-2004 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by Silent H
01-26-2004 11:03 PM


holmes, I believe all sediments layers are primarily the fossil sediment of the biblical flood, not just limited to the cambrian, likely their is some fossils that could be interpreted to of been formed pre-flood, like coral reefs, buried under the sediments, etc...
P.S. I never got into all the different names given, as too me, they are all just part of the same deposition, I'm just give mark 24 the credit for showing me the fossils are not evidence for the cambrian explosion, so keep looking for your fossils, don't think their out there, but we all enjoy new discoveries, etc...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Silent H, posted 01-26-2004 11:03 PM Silent H has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by crashfrog, posted 01-26-2004 11:35 PM johnfolton has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 191 of 208 (80963)
01-26-2004 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by johnfolton
01-26-2004 11:15 PM


I believe all sediments layers are primarily the fossil sediment of the biblical flood
But they can't be if some of the layers pre-date the flood, as you've argued in other threads. So which is it? You can't have it both ways.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by johnfolton, posted 01-26-2004 11:15 PM johnfolton has not replied

:æ: 
Suspended Member (Idle past 7184 days)
Posts: 423
Joined: 07-23-2003


Message 192 of 208 (81002)
01-27-2004 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by johnfolton
01-26-2004 8:20 PM


whatever writes:
it does gives a record of the creatures alive 4,350 years ago, when this flood poured out the sediments upon the earth, with the flood waters.
So the fossil record must indicate then, that elephants outran velociraptors in the race for higher ground as the flood waters rose? Not just some elephants, mind you. ALL of them. Is it your contention that this is what happened? How do you explain it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by johnfolton, posted 01-26-2004 8:20 PM johnfolton has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 193 of 208 (81009)
01-27-2004 2:08 AM


Topic drift and topic random debris???
The concept of "intelligent design" does show up occasionly. Also the "great flood" and other topics. Time to close this one down, as a terminal mess? I take a look tommorrow morning.
BTW, Whatever is currently under suspension.
Adminnemooseus

Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Warren, posted 01-28-2004 1:54 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 194 of 208 (81049)
01-27-2004 6:56 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by johnfolton
01-26-2004 8:20 PM


Whatever,
mark24, I no longer believe the fossil record gives an accurate record of the Cambrian explosion,
You mean your argument got whipped, six of the best trousers down, don't you?
You can't help yourselves, can you? You are such a compartmentalised thinkers that you never cross-check one of your held beliefs against another for consistency. This is ALL creationism is, tiny factoids ripped from their context at the expense of all directly contradictory data.
It was crashingly obvious to anyone who actually was a critical thinker that you were being a hypocritical creationist grasping at straws for something that would support your view. Typical.
Mark

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by johnfolton, posted 01-26-2004 8:20 PM johnfolton has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 195 of 208 (81157)
01-27-2004 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Warren
01-23-2004 2:08 PM


Re: Intelligent Design
Then we simply neeD to discuss this on an observation and formulation basis first and foremost. We can do plenty of normative science and even Dennet's idea that Edelman doesnt know what a computer is no matter how the explanation is presented. Information architeture need not have loops and recursions as the same (thing.). You can always invert a question in the last word. You can not always invert the physical arrangement of (a)"zero" or any other sign for that matter. "incompleteness" ...well let me thiink. Just that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Warren, posted 01-23-2004 2:08 PM Warren 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