|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,787 Year: 4,044/9,624 Month: 915/974 Week: 242/286 Day: 3/46 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 375 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What would a transitional fossil look like? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
To make her argument Faith needs clear, justifiable and consistent criteria and to show the application of them to tetrapods and to trilobites. Her criteria are not clear, seem to be made up as she goes along and don’t seem to be applied consistently at all. And we have no real examples of actual application - nothing that gets into the anatomical details. Clearly, she has no idea what she's doing. A hint of a vague idea bubbled up to her neo-cortex, which she grabbed and started running with without ever thinking any of it through. So she's just making up stupid stuff on the fly. Your reference to anatomical details is important and exposes the weakness of Faith's latest ramblings even more. It's not the shape of the animals that group them together as the same "kind", but rather it's the anatomical details. If we went purely by shape, then we would have to group whales with fish, penguins with seals, and many marsupial species with placental ones (eg, sugar gliders and flying squirrels). A common environment and survival lifestyle will lead to very similar, if not identical, body shapes and behaviors. Rather, it's through the anatomical details that we are able to group species together properly. Of course, you already know that, but Faith doesn't so that was for her benefit. Of course, she will never read it because she's devoted to the practice of willful stupidity. Edited by dwise1, : Corrected "the the" to "not the" in " It's the the shape of the animals that group"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
... , capiche? Questa parola non si scrive in questo modo! Si scrive come "(Tu) capisci?" o "(Lei) capisce". "Che" pronunciato come "que" in spagnolo. Impari un po' del idioma, per favore! Capisce?
I'm not impressed with the "Job-like" patience of people who believe something I object to so strenuously. Why would you expect me to? IOW, you are a hidebound creationist terrified of dealing with the evidence because it contradicts your creationist beliefs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
I'm happy to hear about regulatory genes that determine what the HOX genes do in a given creature. That makes sense. ... If HOX genes make an arm in one creature but a flipper in another I'm not sure why you'd want to make a big deal out of that. The "Stan Lee Effect" is strong in this one. You latch onto a "sciencey sounding" word and, without understanding anything about it, use it to make your end product (eg, a comic book) sound "sciencey."
Body structure doesn't vary much from generation to generation ... Yeah. One thing you overlooked is that that basic body structure controlled by essentially the same HOX genes belong to all tetrapods. That means that your imagined "cat kind" and your imagined "dog kind" have essentially the same HOX genes. As do bears. As do other mammals. As do reptiles. As do amphibians. IOW, as do all tetrapods. HOX genes are not unique to any single "basic created kind" that you would wish to construct ad hoc, but rather they show that all those "kinds" are related to each other. And they are just one source of evidence. If you follow the evidence, you will clearly see where it leads. But you are a hidebound creationist whose only possible response is to blind yourself to the evidence, because that's the only way you can possibly support your false creationist position and false assertions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Parte Deux
In Message 209 I stated:
DWise1 writes: If you follow the evidence, you will clearly see where it leads. But you are a hidebound creationist whose only possible response is to blind yourself to the evidence, because that's the only way you can support your false creationist position. Do the name "Michael Denton" ring a bell?* He is/was an MD with a PhD in biochemistry who for some reason felt uncomfortable about evolution and, purportedly inspired by "intelligent design" proponents, wrote an anti-evolution book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. That book sparked many conversations which revealed to Denton that he knew a lot less about evolution than he thought he did, yet Wikipedia still reports that he's a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute. Wikipedia also reports:
quote: Denton's book contains an example of what happens when you follow the evidence, namely that you arrive at the only possible answer. I last posted this a couple years ago in Message 128. In his book (page 284), Denton tries to attack evolution through patterns in protein comparisons. His problem was that he was using typical creationist "Ladder of Life" reasoning instead of Darwinian branching. I should point out here that most creationists also fall victim to "Ladder of Life" reasoning, which is most definitely false. The comparisons under "Ladder of Life" make no sense, but then when he used a branching model, which is what evolution actually teaches, then all the protein comparisons fell into place. Despite Denton's wishes, the evidence still pointed the right way. Although I got this from a Creation/Evolution Newsletter article, I did refer directly to my copy of Denton's book to write this. Here's what I wrote:
quote: Of course, presenting that to you, Faith, is casting pearls before swine (a bad habit of mine that my minister tried to warn me about, especially when dealing with religiously bigoted idiots like Boy Scouts of America, Incorporated). But while you will eternally remain willfully ignorant and stupid, there is a chance that lurkers will still learn something. ------------------------------------------ FOOTNOTE *:I'm almost embarrassed to remember this from my childhood, but I blame Sammy Davis Jr. for bringing it up on Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In with his line, "Do the name Ruby Begonia ring a bell?" I do not remember any thing about her nor her role in the story, but I somehow associated that name with Amos 'n Andy. The TV show continued to play as I was growing up. I remember being confused about the title, since all the stories were instead about the Kingfish and his dodgy relationship with his wife whose favorite perfume was called, "Manslaugher". Edited by dwise1, : footnote
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Gosh the usual gobbledygook. Because you CAN'T describe how to get from one species to another, all you can do is assert it. And yet you accomplished exactly that in the evolution of the "basic felid kind". To which your only response was to frantically try to redefine the entire world in order to avoid your own discovery. So now all you can do is to lie. So typical of creationists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
First, my religious beliefs are nothing but the standard orthodox ... So which is it? Greek or Russian?
... historical Protestant Christian theology. Which is not the least bit ORTHODOX!. Just what the fuck are you talking about? Don't you have any understanding of Christianity at all?
Second, I am here because I genuinely believe I can show, and have, shown, the falseness of the ToE in many ways, yes with evidence, and offered some reasonable creationist alternatives, and that, truly, nobody has answered me effectively. What? That you have asserted the just removing water from sediments creates rocks? And when I merely suggested to you to talk with actual geologists to answer that stupendously stupid idea your response was a series of emails that continuously escalated into extreme hysteria (not just mere hysteria, but rather extreme hysteria with extremely large fonts of all kinds of different colors -- that kind of hysteria cannot be spontaneous, but rather meticulously planned and thoroughly deliberate).
{typical creationist nonsense} You have proven nothing whatsoever. All you have tried to do is to change the meanings of terminology in an attempt to redefine reality by redefining words, which only works in theology and weasel-lawyer-weasel-wording. All your efforts are pure bullshit and everybody knows that it's all just bullshit, so who are you deluding besides yourself? And as for your politics, you have already disgraced that and yourself so many times over. And your latest propaganda film, "Unplanned", has already been exposed as yet another ham-fisted hatchet job. Just what kind of purpose do you actually think that you serve here?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024