Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8951 total)
742 online now:
dwise1, Hyroglyphx, jar, JonF, Lammy, PaulK, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (7 members, 735 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,861 Year: 21,897/19,786 Month: 460/1,834 Week: 460/315 Day: 56/82 Hour: 6/13


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Great Creationist Fossil Failure
Modulous
Member (Idle past 441 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 1124 of 1163 (795824)
12-17-2016 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1123 by mike the wiz
12-17-2016 5:47 PM


Re: clades vs kinds
The problem is, can't the clade, can't the cladogram exist, WITHOUT this ancestor?

quote:
clade
kleɪd/
nounBiology
noun: clade; plural noun: clades

a group of organisms believed to comprise all the evolutionary descendants of a common ancestor.


No.

Have they found this ancestor? If so can you name it?

It would be difficult to know, wouldn't it? At least if you are talking about the most recent common ancestor. But as a reasonable approximation it'd be Hadrocodium.

The problem is, a homoplasy is basically only, "not a homology" because it does not fit with the evolutionary story of divergence.

No, that's not true.

Think about it - two creatures identical but one marsupial and one placental, logically speaking, should falsify evolution.

Well sure, but if they were identical then one wouldn't be a marsupial while one was placental. Those two groups have significant differences.

So how do we logically falsify evolution?

It's not mathematics. You'd need to empirically falsify it.

Heads it's evolutionary divergence. (homologies) Tails it's evolutionary convergence (homoplasies)

No.

But what if the actual conclusion is that God as a Creator, simply does not obey any rules.

Then God, as a creator, is not logical and falls afoul of the very problems you criticize evolution with. Heads it's God, Tails it's God.

it seems to me "analogues" are just excuses for why divergence can't solve the problem.

'Seems to me' is not good enough.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1123 by mike the wiz, posted 12-17-2016 5:47 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 441 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 1127 of 1163 (795827)
12-18-2016 6:52 AM
Reply to: Message 1126 by mike the wiz
12-18-2016 6:40 AM


Re: clades vs kinds
I thought, "real scientists" use the term, "hydraulic sorting"? But Gould the non-creationist, used the term, "hydrological", so this is an example of a double-standard fallacy I have astutely spotted

Gould wasn't talking about hydraulic sorting though was he, Mike? If you think about it, there is a difference between the word 'hydrological' and the term 'hydrological sorting'. Your first clue should be in the number of words - the first has one, the second has two - in case you were having difficulty with that. Not even remotely astute, and your lack of epistemic humility backfires yet again.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1126 by mike the wiz, posted 12-18-2016 6:40 AM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1129 by mike the wiz, posted 12-18-2016 7:13 AM Modulous has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 441 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(2)
Message 1130 of 1163 (795830)
12-18-2016 7:27 AM
Reply to: Message 1129 by mike the wiz
12-18-2016 7:13 AM


Re: clades vs kinds
Modulous, in this link, the evolutionists respond by use of the term, "hydrological sorting", meaning they permit the term. So even if Gould didn't use the term, the same, logically all I have to do is show that evolutionists DO use the term in the same way, and your point becomes a MOOT point.

My point was that you were wrong about Gould. Since you more or less admit this, I'd say it wasn't moot, but conceded.

The term, "again", is a question-begging-epithet, because it IMPLIES it happens, "often"

It does Mike. We have been doing this on and off for a decade.

And it wasn't a lack of humility.

It was the lack of epistemic humility.

Humility is the low view/value of one's importance, not LIES.

Epistemic humility is the idea that when you make pronouncements you indicate that you understand you might be wrong. Pronouncing that 'I have astutely spotted' is epistemic arrogance.

It would be LIES and false humility to say, "I am not astute" or to hide a statement of fact.

This is arrogance, and the lack of humility, should it turn out to be false, can bite you in the behind. Something that seems to regularly happen.

if I can respond knowing I have that advantage over them, for it then reveals that their great, swelling boasts against creationists, are unfounded such as the opening message which is riddled with fallacious content.

Except when you make mistakes, which you often do, and then your preening about your intellectual superiority and advantages looks utterly foolish.

quote:
and you only said, "epistemic" to sound smart

No, I used 'epistemic' because I meant something specific. Google 'epistemic humility' for fuck's sake. You need to learn it desperately.

quote:
you have a tendency towards pomp

Ad hominem. Stop being such a dick, Mike.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1129 by mike the wiz, posted 12-18-2016 7:13 AM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1131 by mike the wiz, posted 12-18-2016 8:13 AM Modulous has responded
 Message 1133 by Percy, posted 12-18-2016 8:30 AM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 441 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 1132 of 1163 (795836)
12-18-2016 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 1131 by mike the wiz
12-18-2016 8:13 AM


Re: clades vs kinds
Well I don't know why I have wound you up so much. You do seem to have spent all your energy on debating mike, rather than showing how I can falsify evolution if it predicts all of the facts.

Feel free to get back to somewhere close to the topic rather than talking about Me and You.

The Theory of Evolution doesn't necessarily 'predict' all the specific facts. It can explain most of them in a parsimonious fashion.

oh come one now. SOMEONE please tell me they can perceive mischief, are you guys dried up totally?

As a piece of advice: If you go around with the attitude you do, be prepared for it to be reflected back at you. I can see your mischief, and Dr A's acerbic wit in his retorts and my dry deadpan variants thereof. Just stop getting distracted by it!

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1131 by mike the wiz, posted 12-18-2016 8:13 AM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1135 by mike the wiz, posted 12-18-2016 8:38 AM Modulous has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 441 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 1138 of 1163 (795844)
12-18-2016 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1135 by mike the wiz
12-18-2016 8:38 AM


Re: clades vs kinds
That amuses me as an assertion, which is all it is.

Correct. But then, all I've seen from you is assertions too.

Is it parsimonious to explain the general stasis of forms by invoking millions on non-existent transitional species?

No; but then I don't do that. I explain the general stasis of 'forms' using the heritability of traits. This requires few entities, all of which are uncontroversial and I certainly don't need the theory of evolution to explain it.

Or is it more parsimonious to explain designer-necessity as a real life problem for intelligently designed things, WITHOUT invoking millions of entities?

You've invoked a new entity here Mike. An intelligent designer. This is not parsimonious.

Are you sure you understand what the term, "parsimonious", means? (google: The principle of parsimony)

Yes I do.

For instance, although explaining fire in terms of energy release caused by chemical interactions requires billions and billions of atoms to explain. This is not unparsimonious compared to say inventing 'phlogiston' specifically for this problem because those billions of atoms also explain all other chemical interactions at the same time.

I think you've confused what the entities in question mean. It's not that there are many atoms that means there are many entities. The entities are

1) Energy
2) Atoms {and their associated electrons}

Indeed when we realize that atoms are just a form of energy the only entity to explain fire is 'energy' which also explains every physical interaction we know about. So it's a parsimonious explanation even though the universe has say 1080 atoms.

Otherwise the most parsimonious explanation for life is that it was all created NOW, your parents are fictions of your mind, as are all other animals, bacteria etc etc. Which is clearly silly.

For example it can be shown that with designs we all agree are designed, such as vehicles, there are certain types of design which form a hierarchy as a cladogram.

For example, cars, planes and bicycles, all require braking-mechanisms and wheels. This means we have 100% KNOWLEDGE/PROOF that similar features in very different designs, can AND ARE used by designers, even the same designers. Dyson will use motors in his vacuums but he may also use motors in a different appliance.

The hierarchy you make, however, is subjective. I can make a hierarchy of animals using physical traits and make a hierarchy of animals using DNA and find the same hierarchies forming. They are nested like a family tree.

I suppose the fact that I have my mother's lips and eyes, but my father's intellect could be because some designer decided to take the ideas of my mother and father and combine them to create me. But that seems a little absurd doesn't it? Especially given what we know about inheritance.

So if I have a bat with echolocation, and an oil bird with echolocation and a whale with echolocation, is it there by evolution simply by the assertion it was converged upon by evolution, or is the feature there because of design-necessity

Well feel free to explain how they got there through design-necessity. I await your theory. Remember it needs to also explain why marsupial mice and placental mice may look similar but have very different genomes. Good luck.

which also explains why all of the intermediate forms for oil birds, bats, and whales, are conspicuously absent.

No, they aren't.

That's all I have to say for now at EvC forum. I precisely PLAN my measure of activity so as it favours my position rather than yours.

Yes, I've noticed you drop a bunch of assertions and leave when they are challenged.

If I continue to let people indulge themselves in personal attacks on mikey, very soon it will turn into a neurotic agreement about several things about the person, "mike".

Get over yourself Mike. I'm here to talk about evolution vs creationism. Tell me how I got my mother's eyes through the action of a designer. Tell me how my fingers came to be through the action of a designer...let us count the entities you need to do this.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1135 by mike the wiz, posted 12-18-2016 8:38 AM mike the wiz 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