Transitional fossils and quote mining

I have just read both of your links. They consist of dumb lies about genetics. They also contain dumb lies about what biologists say about genetics. Wow.So, some creationists deny that Archaeopteryx is an intermediate form by pretending that it's a modern bird, some creationists deny that it's an intermediate form by pretending that it's a Compsognathus to which feathers have been added by fraudsters, and a tiny minority consisting in my experience solely of you simply claim that the existence of a perfect intermediate form such as Archaeopteryx is "no surprise to us". This, is, of course, completely untrue. How do you suppose they found it? But the experts do not have opposite opinions. They have opinions so similar that it takes considerable study to know what they're disagreeing about.To help you out, here's a picture. On top, a basal bipedal archosaur. On the bottom, a derived theropod dinosaur. Spot the significant morphological differences.Feduccia and his chums say that archosaurs are ancestral to birds which are ancestral to theropods, whereas all the other scientists think that archosaurs are ancestral to theropods which are ancestral to birds.Both sides agree that birds are descended from bipedal archosaurs. Both agree that theropods and birds were the closest of relatives. Both sides agree that Archaeopteryx is a lovely example of an intermediate form between ancient archosaur and modern bird.And these views you call "opposite"?Oh, but now you can pull your tiresome, dumb switcheroo. If scientists disagree about some minor point, that proves that you can't trust them on anything. But if they agree on some major point, that proves that they're fanatical dogmatists. Well, so long as they're talking about some aspect of science that you don't like. If scientists agree that the Sun is hot, then since you don't object to that, I guess that's OK. When I read stuff that dishonest, I begin to understand why vengeful people like to fantasize that Hell exists.If there is one person who deserves to have God spit the word "liar!" in his face forever, I believe you just quoted him. And you are ludicrously wrong.---P.S: Why do you keep raving on about philosophical naturalism when you know perfectly well that biologists have a wide diversity of philosophical views?---P.P.S: Is this thread turning into a complete Gish Gallop where you just make false statements about any random subject that takes your fancy?The subject is how creationists continually lie about and twist statements made by scientists. Any ranting you wish to do other than pretending that these creationist bullshitters are being honest is off-topic.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Hi MagdaWill reply to post 87 before 85. Yeah, oh well, better luck next time I do not doubt that you believe this. however my point is this you have a worldview that you say has very compelling evidence, in fact you think it is so compelling that you don't have any doubt about it at all, but i also say that i have a worldview which has very compelling evidence. So who is right? this is where debate comes in. While i may not be able to change your worldview, what i hope i can do is to firstly challenge many of the misconceptions about the YEC creation model, that seem to abound. 2nd, i hope to be able to show you that you can not dismiss a YEC, simply for being a YEC, but if you do dismiss me then it is because you think that YEC arguments are easily refuted.Linnaeus: ok, even if linnaeus catagorizes humans like this, it still doesn't necessarily make it true. Sweet, Thank you. Hehehe ah well, that's the way it is, I guess I'll just have to deal with it.
Anyhoo lets get onto discussing post 85 Example? hmm...I guess it depends on what these major points are, but theories like gradualism, punctuated equalibrium, Evo Devo, all have their proponents which claim that their idea is the major force of how evolution works. Yes. What is wrong with using a definition from the web? zebras, horses, and donkeys are all part of the "equine" syngameon or kind (Zenkey zonkey zebra donkey - creation.com). While there is still much work (testing animals for hybridization) that needs to be done to compile a complete list of syngameons plenty of work has been done in this area. There is an excellent book which i am reading at the moment called Noah's Ark: A feasibility study, by John Woodmorapppe which deals with these "problems" The number of kinds needed to take on the Ark is estimated to be about 8000. Haven't you read my previous posts? these mechanisms cause "devolution" not evolution. The "smooth gradual change" is only found in textbooks not in reality. I'm guessing your talking about fossil succession. Here is a snipet from an article by John Woodmorappe The fossil record - creation.com hmm.. you mean a mammal with feathers. Sure none have been found. Doesn't mean they didn't exist, And even if they never did exist how is this proof against creation? Firstly, it was a predator (more or less) free country. Secondly the animals that we see work well with flood theory, i.e. mainly birds, as they eventually flew there after the flood.These "predictions" in no way prove the YEC model wrong. Great! So then we don't have to worry about that. As I've said before Tiktaalik does not seem to be a transitional fossil (Tiktaalik roseae--a fishy 'missing link' - creation.com) See J. Woodmorappe quote above. ehh...??? the only thing about birds in that post is which in no way says anything against evolutionism or transitional forms in general. I was and am debating details. As i have said before, the culminative effect of refuting the details will show that evolution is false, not just a single detail. Great I also see myself as valuing "the scientific method, holding an opinion tentatively, with the possibility of later finding new information that would force a change of opinion". In some of the details of YEC theory I also think that some of my beliefs are "subject to constant comparison to evidence and possible re-evaluation. Until I see compelling evidence to the contrary, I am happy to accept the evidence I have seen and the consensus of the majority of..." YEC experts. What one, and, how so? If you can "not make a watertight argument for any (transitional forms) being directly ancestral to living species groups" then where is the clear progressive tree? If you can not say that "this evolved into that, which evolved into that..." then where is this "clear" progression of what evolved into what? Then the only thing linking them is a good story. And as patterson said "It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test."

Rubbish. The way I used the quote was to show that evolution is a belief, the last part of the quote "The general evidence for evolution is simply too compelling to dismiss" shows that Magda believes that there is evidence that supports his belief. Whether or not Magda thinks there is evidence for his belief is irrelevent as to the point I was making i.e. that he has a belief. The two are different topics. I have addressed this last sentence in my detailed reply to him.

You mean like "evolutionism?" When you stop doing it, we'll stop calling you on it. In the very message I'm replying to you said, "And on this point there are some notable experts in the evolutionary community who disagree with this," as if this argument over details of the evolutionary history of birds called evolution itself into question. Uh, yes it is. The only worldview that those on the side of science share is that only evidence from the natural world can tell us about the natural world. Anything we come to accept about the history of life on Earth must be based upon evidence gathered from the real world. That's our worldview. So creationists believe mutations can be both "degenerative" and beneficial? And evolutionists believe mutations can be both disadvantageous and beneficial? Yet creationists see evolution working in the opposite way from evolutionists? I think you need to explain why creationists believe that the combination of advantageous and disadvantageous mutations can only result in "devolution." Oh, and a definition of "devolution" would help, too. How can you tell when something is "devolving?" How so? Then explain to us how scientists are wrong about the shared characteristics that cause them to classify humans, chimpanzees and gorillas as apes. A population of bacteria can have nearly a hundred generations a day. A population of chipmunks can have 500 generations per millenium. A population of humans can have 50,000 generations per million years. The earth is 4.5 billion years old and life has been present for at least 3.5 billions years. So where's the time problem again?--Percy

So what did Mr Theunissen tell Patterson the creationist interpretation was. Or what was the belief of what the creationist interpretation was. In other words, what was the creationist interpretation, and was it different to Mr Theunissens interpretation?This is the way CMI defended themselves: That quote!about the missing transitional fossils - creation.comAlso the quote at the top of this post needs to be read IN CONTEXT with other sources that show pattersons position. I have ordered the transcript of his lecture so hopefully we can discuss it again in a few week's time.

You're being mendacious about being mendacious. But we can all read what you wrote.When you put the word "BELIEF" in capital letters, were you just trying to equate evolution with the belief that the Earth is not flat? When you wrote "BELIEF or presupposition", thus dishonestly conflating the two terms, would you have used that phrase to describe an affirmation of the non-flatness of the Earth? When you said that you "loved" the quote you snipped out of context, would you have had similarly amorous feelings towards a statement that the Earth is not flat?Of course you cut away Granny Magda's statement about compelling evidence because quoting it would not have allowed you to make your snide and childish point. As you know as well as I do.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I really wish you'd split off the subtitle, but let's take a look... I don't see the problem with my statement - I was commenting on the fact that it says, basically "positive mutations can occur" - you're right though, it still says all mutations are harmful, just in a roundabout, double-negative way. very disengenuous, and pretending it's science won't help - "devolution" is a made-up word without foundation.To continue, you apparently totally disregarded the refutation of the Dilemma that you yourself brought up from the quote mines of creation.com, because you continued why would it make it worse? It only makes it worse IF "all mutations are harmful" and you're a hell of a long way from proving anything of the sort. Examples have been given of positive mutations (sickle-cell under some conditions, moth colouration and far, far more) so that part is bunk.Stick to proving one point Arphy - stick to either "evolution can't have the desired effect even in the timeframe from evolutionists" OR "devolution is bad, mmmkay?", because you carried on again: which basically says "all mutations are harmful" and I feel confident in saying that that page is dreck from top to bottom, full of outdated information, misquotes, mistakes and outright lies.It is entirely science-free and really does little to bolster the opinion you would apparently like others to have of you of somebody who honestly looks at both sides of the issue. Every single one of those issues has been dealt with in at least one place, and that's "talk origins"."punctuated equilibrium" is another canard - it's always trotted out by creationists who would like everyone to believe that it means evolution is impossible because apparently "everything evolved at once".Just go to talk.origins and search for the term, you'll find out why your view of it is wrong.

Here. This drivel of gross, stupid, clumsy lies does not so much constitute "defending themselves" as condemning themselves out of their own mouths.

ehh...???? See you did it again. Where did I say that? What the..?? Again, the things that you "come to accept about the history of life on Earth" (worldview) you think is "based upon evidence gathered from the real world". Again, I don't doubt you think there is good reason to accept your worldview. However the evidence is not the worldview. Evidence is used to support or refute a worldview.Degenerative is not the same as disadvanntageous. Everything is always devolving. As my article clearly explains Mutations are evolutions end - creation.com. Our genomes are in a constant state of decay. This also answers your next and also last objection. I'm not saying we don't have any shared characteristics. I'm not sure why scientists classify humans this way as there are many big differences between an ape and a human.

ehh..how did you answer my question? I have read that already, and it doesn't say, hence why i asked. Whatever Dr Adequate. You just keep dismissing stuff with no basis with the use of your favourite word: "lies". Great, really helpful (note the very sarcastic tone).

Then I can only recommend that you read it again. You keep linking to pages of creationists telling lies.If you would like to present any evidence for any of this creationist mumbo-jumbo, feel free. Otherwise, I just look at the latest slab of creationist rhetoric, wince at the stupidity and dishonesty of the person who wrote it, giggle at the stupidity and credulity of the people who fell for it ... and call it dumb creationist lies.There are rules on this forum. We're not meant to debate by posting links. Otherwise (as a reductio ad absurdum) our arguments would end up consisting of you saying: "Creationist lie #5!" and me replying: "Well-established scientific facts #2059 - #4392 inclusive!"Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Post #76, also some of the slabs of creationist trash that you linked to and quoted --- or do you disclaim responsibility for that stuff? Wow, you inadvertently said something true.Yes, you are right. The people who look at the evidence (they're called "scientists") can use it to distinguish between different "worldviews" (they're called "hypotheses"). This allows them to identify the hypothesis consistent with the evidence (which is called "evolution") and to identify the hypothesis which, in the light of the evidence, is shrieking, gibbering lunacy (which is called "creationism"). Unless one happens to speak English. But it is not your article, and it is a mess of gibberish and lies from beginning to end. Since I speak English, I am not sure what you mean by that. Are you later going to claim that "decay" is not "disadvantageous" and does not constitute "degeneration"? I'm sure that there are many things that scientists do that mystify you, like everything.Are humans and chimps more different than, for example, an ostrich and a hummingbird? Of course not. Yet we classify both ostriches and hummingbirds as birds. So why, except for dumb religious taboos, should scientists not have a word for apes, namely apes?

I'll tell you what, but that sounds like a creationist quote if ever I heard one.why?Because it sounds like this, but dressed up to appear scientific to the ignorant layman:

quote:

---

in the beginning, god made everything perfect. Since the fall, sin and corruption have been in the world and things are only (ever) going to get worse.

---

And I'm quoting myself - I'm not a creationist but I can play one on the internet.that people get old and die is not evidence of a genome in decay - that would mean people couldn't have babies, and would be stupider now, and more full of things like cancer and deformities, than they were 6000 years ago.Our genomes would have obviously decayed by now when compared with ancient DNA samples. The DNA of all animals AND plants would be seen to be "devolving" and decaying - especially when compared with old samples from thousands of years ago.I can confidently say that is not occuring. "biblical facts" of Adam living to 900 and so on notwithstanding, that's patently, obviously false.Your (non) scientific theory is proved false by practical observation.Peer review, in other words.would you like to try again?(PS, if that page is actually yours then wow, you're in-famous! but sorry, you don't get credibility for writing words on a web-page)Edited by greyseal, : No reason given.Edited by greyseal, : No reason given.

It says sufficient in the first sentence of the second paragraph: Clearly the creationist in question read it as an admission that there were no transitional fossils.

Hi, Arphy.I recognize the enormity of the task you have ahead of you in this thread, with so many opponents, and I commend you for your intelligence and your good demeanor. First, leave genetic drift out: it's just a side effect of mutation and reproduction. Side effects, by definition, cannot be hard-core.Second, the hard core is the portion of the worldview that defines the rest. "Everything evolved from something else" is clearly an extension of evolution, so you cannot say it is the "hard core." If your hard core is an extension of something else, then clearly, the "something else" is more central to your worldview than the extension of it, right? Common sense.----- Why not? A mechanism is the ultimate explanation for any event. Thus, the logical way to cluster events into a workable worldview is mechanistically.----- Arphy, I'm trying to be patient with this.You acknowledge that arguments against the soft core do not translate into arguments against the hard-core, but yet, you still think that arguments about natural history (a soft-core topic) can expose flaws in evolution (a hard-core topic).Let me try to represent it graphically. Here is a picture of a generic tree diagram: Think of each of the dots as a different component of a worldview. See how everything in the worldview traces to a single, central concept? That’s the hard core: ToE. The letter’s A-F (pretend one of those E’s is an F) represent auxiliary ideas. Let’s say that A is common descent, and that C is birds evolved from coelurosaurs.What happens if I remove C and replace it with G (birds evolve from stem-archosaurs)? Does that change anything else on the diagram? No: it only changes A--C to A--G.Remember my Christology example: there are hundreds of different opinions about the nature and teachings of Jesus. Remember Arius? He thought that Jesus was not God Incarnate, but a creation of God. Here is a quote from Arius (source):

quote:

---

But we say and believe and have taught, and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor in any way part of the unbegotten; and that he does not derive his subsistence from any matter... We are persecuted, because we say that the Son has a beginning, but that God is without beginning.

---

Arius very clearly stated that Jesus is not God the Father. Would I be within my rights to use this quote to support an argument that Jesus was not a real historical figure?-----Just because you repeat ad nauseum that you are not doing it doesn't mean you actually aren't. So, I will continue to ignore your claims that you are not conflating soft-core and hard-core arguments until you actually stop conflating them.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.