Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-27-2019 2:13 AM
29 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,844 Year: 9,880/19,786 Month: 2,302/2,119 Week: 338/724 Day: 1/62 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
567
8
910Next
Author Topic:   Pigeons and Dogs: Micro or Macro evolution?
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 106 of 144 (146183)
09-30-2004 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Robert Byers
09-30-2004 4:53 PM


Second it is not verified that DNA is saying it is related to ancestry as opposed to similarity.

So, you don't believe that DNA tests can substantiate paternity? You think that it's just coincidence that a son has his father's DNA, or you think that's due to the fact that they live in the same house?

DNA is still a new thing and you guys shouldn't be grasping at it for survival.

We've known that DNA is the molecule of inheritance for almost a hundred years. Of course, it's been the molecule of inheritance for billions of years. I wouldn't exactly call it "a new thing."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Robert Byers, posted 09-30-2004 4:53 PM Robert Byers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Robert Byers, posted 10-05-2004 3:41 PM crashfrog has responded
 Message 113 by Robert Byers, posted 10-05-2004 3:41 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 107 of 144 (146184)
09-30-2004 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Robert Byers
09-30-2004 4:57 PM


We exist and so does the natural world. Its Toe that says this evidence is wrong.

There is no claim in the Theory of Evolution that we do not exist, or that the natural world does not exist.

This message has been edited by crashfrog, 09-30-2004 04:00 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Robert Byers, posted 09-30-2004 4:57 PM Robert Byers has not yet responded

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2541 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 108 of 144 (146185)
09-30-2004 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by DrJones*
09-27-2004 6:52 PM


I'm not 100% sure dogs/bears are the same. As I said its just observation and fossil overlapping I've read about. Thats all I've got.
I understand your saying that humans and apes difference is no greater then bears/dogs.

However People are different from apes in our identity. Our similarity in form (as far as it goes) is not evidence of heritage. We have another revealation. Dogs/bears probably the same kind has evidence (I think) in the fossil record. We don't.
Rob


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by DrJones*, posted 09-27-2004 6:52 PM DrJones* has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by NosyNed, posted 09-30-2004 5:59 PM Robert Byers has responded
 Message 111 by DrJones*, posted 09-30-2004 7:01 PM Robert Byers has responded

    
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 109 of 144 (146186)
09-30-2004 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Robert Byers
09-30-2004 4:57 PM


quote:
Creation is a sef evident thing. We exist and so does the natural world. Its Toe that says this evidence is wrong.

Evolution is self evident. We exist and so do the natural laws of which evolution is part of. It is creationists who say that there are other laws and they have yet to demonstrate them.

quote:
Yes hoever all that is talked about in Toe is interpretation of bones and flesh. Surely our observation of the world now trumps interpretations of scanty data that changes with every new graduation class in small circles.

Yes, however, all that is talked about in creationism is that the bible has to be correct. Surely our observations of the world now trump a book written 2500 years ago by scientifically illiterate goat herders that has spawned thousands of different interpretations, such as catholicism, gnosticism, and protestantism.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Robert Byers, posted 09-30-2004 4:57 PM Robert Byers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Robert Byers, posted 10-05-2004 3:54 PM Loudmouth has responded
 Message 115 by Robert Byers, posted 10-05-2004 3:54 PM Loudmouth has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8842
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 110 of 144 (146209)
09-30-2004 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Robert Byers
09-30-2004 5:03 PM


We don't.

You don't get to keep making statments about things that you know absolutely nothing about.

and then we have this little twist:

Robert Byers writes:

For example I myself have no problem seeing bears and dogs as all from the same one that came off the Ark. I was impressed by how similiar the bear is to the dog and in the fossil record (post flood as I see it or post cret/ter line for you) how phrases like bear-dog were used and other examples of overlap.

and now:

Robert Byers writes:

I'm not 100% sure dogs/bears are the same.

This is a very common creationist bit of behaviour. That is why we ask for a definition of kind and some concrete examples. If (and that's a big if) they are given as soon as one doesn't like the outcome the definition starts to shift around.

Another thing you don't know is just what a "kind" is. And you won't find a safe, useful definition from creationist sources.

This message has been edited by NosyNed, 09-30-2004 05:00 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Robert Byers, posted 09-30-2004 5:03 PM Robert Byers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Robert Byers, posted 10-05-2004 3:58 PM NosyNed has not yet responded
 Message 117 by Robert Byers, posted 10-05-2004 3:58 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1868
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 111 of 144 (146241)
09-30-2004 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Robert Byers
09-30-2004 5:03 PM


As I said its just observation

And for the fourth time. What observations? What are the criteria that you are using to place dogs and bears in the same "kind"? Why do you keep dodging this question?

However People are different from apes in our identity

What does this mean? What is our identity?

Dogs/bears probably the same kind has evidence (I think) in the fossil record

As does the ape/human relationship. How do you explain the numerous specimens of early Homo? or those of Homo neaderthalensis/Homo sapiens neaderthalensis?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Robert Byers, posted 09-30-2004 5:03 PM Robert Byers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Robert Byers, posted 10-05-2004 4:03 PM DrJones* has responded

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2541 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 112 of 144 (147566)
10-05-2004 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by crashfrog
09-30-2004 4:58 PM


What I would say is that DNA is in its infancy and drawing conclusions from DNA trails is not warranted. Perhaps its just a special case of our family connections and not to be extended further back then that. I'm just speculating also that similarity of form would produce similarity if DNA and is not the evidence of actual heritage.
Also TOE etc to grasp DNA to save it from a new aggresion against it shows the paucity of confidence in the old justifications for it.
Rob
This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by crashfrog, posted 09-30-2004 4:58 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by crashfrog, posted 10-05-2004 4:14 PM Robert Byers has responded

    
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2541 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 113 of 144 (147567)
10-05-2004 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by crashfrog
09-30-2004 4:58 PM


What I would say is that DNA is in its infancy and drawing conclusions from DNA trails is not warranted. Perhaps its just a special case of our family connections and not to be extended further back then that. I'm just speculating also that similarity of form would produce similarity if DNA and is not the evidence of actual heritage.
Also TOE etc to grasp DNA to save it from a new aggresion against it shows the paucity of confidence in the old justifications for it.
Rob
This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by crashfrog, posted 09-30-2004 4:58 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

    
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2541 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 114 of 144 (147574)
10-05-2004 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Loudmouth
09-30-2004 5:04 PM


Perhaps WE are off thread here however the Bible has proved wrong in nothing. Indeed if it was by herders it would be a laughing stock to claim truth. Yet rather it is held to be true by a good portion of the most intelligent and successful people in history. Americans (and some Canadians). If the best people hold something to be true , especially the Puritan Protestant wing, this is a great prompt to its accuracy. If backward countries like Mexico or Bulgaria or Bangladesh or Israel instead held the Bible as true and We didn't then you might have a case.
Rob
This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Loudmouth, posted 09-30-2004 5:04 PM Loudmouth has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Loudmouth, posted 10-05-2004 4:46 PM Robert Byers has responded

    
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2541 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 115 of 144 (147575)
10-05-2004 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Loudmouth
09-30-2004 5:04 PM


Perhaps WE are off thread here however the Bible has proved wrong in nothing. Indeed if it was by herders it would be a laughing stock to claim truth. Yet rather it is held to be true by a good portion of the most intelligent and successful people in history. Americans (and some Canadians). If the best people hold something to be true , especially the Puritan Protestant wing, this is a great prompt to its accuracy. If backward countries like Mexico or Bulgaria or Bangladesh or Israel instead held the Bible as true and We didn't then you might have a case.
Rob
This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Loudmouth, posted 09-30-2004 5:04 PM Loudmouth has not yet responded

    
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2541 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 116 of 144 (147578)
10-05-2004 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by NosyNed
09-30-2004 5:59 PM


Your right. we don't and shouldn't define a kind.
For example the snake. It fist was leggy. Is it still the same kind. We say yes.
I myself have and I hope in the future creationism will liberize what a KIND is.
Natural selection (which seems in a limited way true) has created much speciation to such an extent as to make me think the created kinds are today nowhere to be found although thier offspring are.
Rob
This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by NosyNed, posted 09-30-2004 5:59 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

    
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2541 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 117 of 144 (147579)
10-05-2004 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by NosyNed
09-30-2004 5:59 PM


Your right. we don't and shouldn't define a kind.
For example the snake. It fist was leggy. Is it still the same kind. We say yes.
I myself have and I hope in the future creationism will liberize what a KIND is.
Natural selection (which seems in a limited way true) has created much speciation to such an extent as to make me think the created kinds are today nowhere to be found although thier offspring are.
Rob
This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by NosyNed, posted 09-30-2004 5:59 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

    
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2541 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 118 of 144 (147582)
10-05-2004 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by DrJones*
09-30-2004 7:01 PM


Our Identity is what it is and not like apes at all beyong looks.
Anyways creationists would say there are no fossils showing our descent. There are just obscure pieces of bone where interpretation goes wild to connect us to them.
To hold such a position as descent from Apes etc one neede weighty evidence and instead today what there is could be stored in a fridge.
Good example of extreme conclusions drawn from limited data.
Rob
This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by DrJones*, posted 09-30-2004 7:01 PM DrJones* has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by DrJones*, posted 10-05-2004 4:11 PM Robert Byers has responded

    
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1868
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 119 of 144 (147586)
10-05-2004 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Robert Byers
10-05-2004 4:03 PM


Our Identity is what it is

What is our "Identity" if you're using it determine what human is you should be able to define it.

Anyways creationists would say there are no fossils showing our descent.

And creationists would be wrong.

To hold such a position as descent from Apes etc one neede weighty evidence and instead today what there is could be stored in a fridge.

We have over 500 specimens of Homo Neaderthalensis alone, do you have any proof as to how much space they take up? Or are you jsut propagating a falsehood?


*not an actual doctor
This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Robert Byers, posted 10-05-2004 4:03 PM Robert Byers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Robert Byers, posted 10-08-2004 4:20 PM DrJones* has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 120 of 144 (147588)
10-05-2004 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Robert Byers
10-05-2004 3:41 PM


What I would say is that DNA is in its infancy and drawing conclusions from DNA trails is not warranted.

So you said. But you ignored that we've known that DNA is the molecule of heredity for 100 years. That's not "infancy".

Furthermore you've ignored the fact that molecular phylogenetics is based entirely on the same principles as DNA paternity testing, which has been used over and over again as evidence in court.

If it's good enough for the courtroom, there's no way you can say that its in it's "infancy". You don't get to say that the conclusions aren't "warranted" simply because you don't like them.

The technology is not "in it's infancy." It's a well-developed science and the focus of billions in research dollars and corporate research. You can buy a DNA sequencing machine via mail-order. It fits on your desktop. We're way beyond infancy here, except for the infancy of your arguments.

I'm just speculating also that similarity of form would produce similarity if DNA and is not the evidence of actual heritage.

This is disproved by the existence of animals like the Tazmanian wolf, who are very similar in form to placental wolves, but whose DNA is radically different.

Furthermore, the regions of DNA that we use to substantiate phylogeny are regions that have nothing to do with form.

Also TOE etc to grasp DNA to save it from a new aggresion against it shows the paucity of confidence in the old justifications for it.

Not in the least. The existence of new evidence doesn't mean the old evidence wasn't sufficient. Of course, no evidence could be sufficient for you.

This message has been edited by crashfrog, 10-05-2004 03:18 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Robert Byers, posted 10-05-2004 3:41 PM Robert Byers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Robert Byers, posted 10-08-2004 4:27 PM crashfrog has responded

  
Prev1
...
567
8
910Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019