Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 89 (8890 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-15-2019 4:48 PM
197 online now:
AZPaul3, caffeine, JonF, Meddle, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle, Theodoric (8 members, 189 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 847,541 Year: 2,578/19,786 Month: 660/1,918 Week: 248/266 Day: 20/92 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
89
10
11121314Next
Author Topic:   IC & the Cambrian Explosion for Ahmad...cont..
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3876
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 136 of 199 (31985)
02-11-2003 8:39 PM


I've looked back at the initial message in this topic, and it struck me as being two rather vague topics, made into one topic.

Has this topic run its course, and wandered off into somewhere else? Time to close it?

Adminnemooseus

ps. I was thinking of a contest we could have. Compile a listing of all the topics of 100 messages or greater. Then everyone makes their attempt at determining at what point the discussion went off topic (of course, this could be a grey area situation, but all the better for the arguement).

------------------
{mnmoose@lakenet.com}


Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by mark24, posted 02-11-2003 8:56 PM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

    
mark24
Member (Idle past 3237 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 137 of 199 (31987)
02-11-2003 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Adminnemooseus
02-11-2003 8:39 PM


Admoose,

quote:
Has this topic run its course, and wandered off into somewhere else? Time to close it?

No. The topic has basically remained on topic, maybe not the CE, but the fossil intermediate issue is still being discussed, well, I'm trying, anyway.

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Adminnemooseus, posted 02-11-2003 8:39 PM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

    
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5707 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 138 of 199 (31988)
02-11-2003 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by mark24
02-11-2003 7:32 PM


Dear mark,

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MP: Now, define "transitional form" as a prediction of the ToE.
PB: Since you agree not with my definition why don't you define it yourself. O, you already did that?

An organism halfway becoming another organism? Who is going to judge that it is halfway? You? Or me? Evo's or creo's? That's the question. It all depends on the paradigm.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MP: Er, I DID define "transitional form", but it has nothing to do with your irrelevant parody.

PB: Since you are the evo, you give me your definition and I will have a look at it.

MP: If you want to see what it was, track back through this thread, I'm not doing the work for you.

PB: according to you a transitionform is an organism that is halfway becoming another organism, if I recall properly?

MP: Now, for the 8th time, define "transitional form" as predicted by the ToE. We both know you won't, because that would be an admission that the ToE's predictions are borne out in the fossil record, & that can't be allowed, can it?

PB: I had a look at the fossil record and if the ToE has been born out of this record (18th-19th century is even worse) it must have been done by somebody with a huge imagination.

MP: You'd get caned if you actually defined it. This is the worst sort of intellectual dishonesty: sticking your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes, & going "lalalalala".

PB: It isn't 'lalalalala', it is hummmmmmmmmmmmmm. For a better effect of hearing nothing. Listen, Mark, as long as I am able to defend my position better than any evo on the board, I am allowed to do that.

MP: The longer you hold out, the more ridiculous, evasive, & dishonest you look. In all honesty, Peter, this is the only reason I continually ask you to commit yourself, it makes you look sillier, & sillier.
Not that most posters here need convincing, but the lurkers have seen your evasion, they've seen your fallacious definition, & they've seen your equivocation. What will they think when you try to force GUToB down their throats at a later date? Not much, I'll warrant, they know how you operate.

PB: I only demonstrate that this is a useless discussion. It is always about definitions. I remember a 'mind control' series called "A beautiful accident" and a lot of leading scientist were involved, including Gould, Freeman, a leading neuroscientsist, a leading physicist. And everyone was eagerly awaiting the debate between these 'wise' men. To provide an answer to what everybody wants to know: the origin. Then they started to discuss definitions. For two hours. Nothing was contributed, the answers not provided. There probably are no answers. So, make up your own definitions and provide your own answers. You will never be disappointed. And I don't mind.

best wishes,
Peter


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by mark24, posted 02-11-2003 7:32 PM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by edge, posted 02-11-2003 9:53 PM peter borger has responded
 Message 150 by mark24, posted 02-12-2003 6:31 AM peter borger has not yet responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 4451
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 139 of 199 (31989)
02-11-2003 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by peter borger
02-10-2003 11:28 PM


quote:
Edge: I am not a biologist, so I cannot judge your evidence, though I trust others here who are more knowledgable than I.

PB: Trust others? And if they tell you stories? How do you discriminate?


Actually, it's fairly easy. I use what I now about my field and see what makes sense from elsewhere.

quote:
Edge: However, your fossil discussion has provided no evidence at all, much less compelling evidence. And I don't even require 'beyond any doubt' type of evidence. I'm easy to please.

PB: So you don't require THE evidence and you are easy to please? Well that explains a lot, isn't it.


Well, I was trying to make it easy for you. I just asked for evidence, not prooof. That was in order to overcome your reluctance to answer. I didn't say that I'd accept what you gave us. Why do you read so much into what I say and yet complain that evolutionists are simply connecting dots without evidence?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by peter borger, posted 02-10-2003 11:28 PM peter borger has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4451
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 140 of 199 (31992)
02-11-2003 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by peter borger
02-11-2003 9:10 PM


quote:
MP: Er, I DID define "transitional form", but it has nothing to do with your irrelevant parody.

PB: Since you are the evo, you give me your definition and I will have a look at it.


Oh good. We WOULD love to have your opinion.

But you don't seem to get the point. If you do not tell us what you would accept as a definition, how can we ever give you the example you request? Actually, this is an old creatinist trick, but you do it so well...

[quote]PB: I had a look at the fossil record and if the ToE has been born out of this record (18th-19th century is even worse) it must have been done by somebody with a huge imagination.[quote]

As opposed to whom? And is that a problem? What do you think the role of imagination is in science?

quote:
PB: It isn't 'lalalalala', it is hummmmmmmmmmmmmm. For a better effect of hearing nothing. Listen, Mark, as long as I am able to defend my position better than any evo on the board, I am allowed to do that.

Hmmmmmm, I guess I missed something. It seems to me that you have utterly failed on this thread.

quote:
PB: I only demonstrate that this is a useless discussion. It is always about definitions.

Agreed, as TB and TC have shown, they continually redefine scientific terms. That's why we keep trying to nail you down.

quote:
I remember a 'mind control' series called "A beautiful accident" and a lot of leading scientist were involved, including Gould, Freeman, a leading neuroscientsist, a leading physicist. And everyone was eagerly awaiting the debate between these 'wise' men. To provide an answer to what everybody wants to know: the origin. Then they started to discuss definitions. For two hours. Nothing was contributed, the answers not provided. There probably are no answers. So, make up your own definitions and provide your own answers. You will never be disappointed. And I don't mind.

Yeah, well I suppose we're used to people making up definitions as they go. Should be easy...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by peter borger, posted 02-11-2003 9:10 PM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by peter borger, posted 02-11-2003 10:16 PM edge has not yet responded

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5707 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 141 of 199 (31997)
02-11-2003 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by edge
02-11-2003 9:53 PM


Hi Edge,

Still around?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MP: Er, I DID define "transitional form", but it has nothing to do with your irrelevant parody.
PB: Since you are the evo, you give me your definition and I will have a look at it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edge: Oh good. We WOULD love to have your opinion.

PB: I said, I will have a look. It doesn't say I will give an opinion.

Edge: But you don't seem to get the point. If you do not tell us what you would accept as a definition, how can we ever give you the example you request? Actually, this is an old creatinist trick, but you do it so well...

PB: No, you don't get it. If I would agree with a definition from an evolutionary stance I would agree with evolutionism and I would deny my own paradigm. Since the two paradigms are not compatible, we live in a different worlds.

best wishes,
Peter


This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by edge, posted 02-11-2003 9:53 PM edge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by wj, posted 02-11-2003 10:54 PM peter borger has responded
 Message 149 by Peter, posted 02-12-2003 6:30 AM peter borger has not yet responded

    
wj
Inactive Member


Message 142 of 199 (31999)
02-11-2003 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by peter borger
02-11-2003 10:16 PM


Borger, you are being disingenuous. You have tiptoed around the issue of transitional fossils for too long.

If you expect to have you gutob to be tanek as a serious alternative to the theory of evolution then it has to be compatible with the fossil record. A significant feature of the fossil record is the presence of transitional forms. Your gutob needs to explain them.

Further dithering would adversely affect your credibility.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by peter borger, posted 02-11-2003 10:16 PM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by peter borger, posted 02-12-2003 12:00 AM wj has responded

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5707 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 143 of 199 (32001)
02-12-2003 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by wj
02-11-2003 10:54 PM


dear WJ,

WJ: If you expect to have you gutob to be tanek as a serious alternative to the theory of evolution then it has to be compatible with the fossil record. A significant feature of the fossil record is the presence of transitional forms. Your gutob needs to explain them.

PB: If you are able to demonstrate an organisms that you qualify as TF in an evolutionary sense, then I will explain them from GUToB.

best wishes,
Peter


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by wj, posted 02-11-2003 10:54 PM wj has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by wj, posted 02-12-2003 12:27 AM peter borger has responded
 Message 151 by mark24, posted 02-12-2003 6:45 AM peter borger has not yet responded

    
wj
Inactive Member


Message 144 of 199 (32002)
02-12-2003 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by peter borger
02-12-2003 12:00 AM


quote:
PB: If you are able to demonstrate an organisms that you qualify as TF in an evolutionary sense, then I will explain them from GUToB.

Ambulocetus natans


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by peter borger, posted 02-12-2003 12:00 AM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by peter borger, posted 02-12-2003 1:09 AM wj has responded

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5707 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 145 of 199 (32003)
02-12-2003 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by wj
02-12-2003 12:27 AM


hi WJ,

Are you serious?

I asked for a TF and you present me an ancient otter.

Best wishes,
Peter


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by wj, posted 02-12-2003 12:27 AM wj has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by wj, posted 02-12-2003 1:30 AM peter borger has responded

    
wj
Inactive Member


Message 146 of 199 (32004)
02-12-2003 1:30 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by peter borger
02-12-2003 1:09 AM


A 12 ft otter!! LOL.

Do you have a serious response?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by peter borger, posted 02-12-2003 1:09 AM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by peter borger, posted 02-12-2003 4:55 AM wj has responded

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5707 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 147 of 199 (32016)
02-12-2003 4:55 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by wj
02-12-2003 1:30 AM


Do you have a serious example?

This another MPG.

Best Wishes,
Peter


This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by wj, posted 02-12-2003 1:30 AM wj has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by wj, posted 02-12-2003 5:30 AM peter borger has responded

    
wj
Inactive Member


Message 148 of 199 (32018)
02-12-2003 5:30 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by peter borger
02-12-2003 4:55 AM


Ungulate or cetacean mpg? Or are you going to be evasive again and refer to an mpg for each kind?

BTW, if all vertebrates are from the one mpg, why don't we see transitions between dogs and cats?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by peter borger, posted 02-12-2003 4:55 AM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by peter borger, posted 02-12-2003 7:07 AM wj has not yet responded

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1965 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 149 of 199 (32019)
02-12-2003 6:30 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by peter borger
02-11-2003 10:16 PM


quote:
Peter Borger, he say
PB: No, you don't get it. If I would agree with a definition from an evolutionary stance I would agree with evolutionism and I would deny my own paradigm. Since the two paradigms are not compatible,
we live in a different worlds.

Let's see now ... you won't say what you think an evolutionary
transitional fossil would be in case we think you believe
in evolutionism???

The question asked is::

'If evolution is an accurate description of the emergence of
diversity of life, then we should expect to find some transitional
forms in the fossil record. What would one expect to find
in a fossil that would indicate that it might be a transitional
fossil in an evolutionary sense?'

This does not require you to accept the evolutionary paradigm,
but to explore it. That, afterall, is the guts of scientific
enquiry ... propose an idea, make predictions about what should
be found if the proposition is correct, see if the evidence
matches the predictions.

If you will not accept 'our' definition of what an evolutionary
transitional fossil would look like, supply one yourself.

If you do accept 'our' definition of the above, show us why the
evidence does not match.

List for us the predictions for fossil evidence that your paradigm
has, then show us whether there is data to affirm the predictions.

(Got me formatting wrong so edited )

[This message has been edited by Peter, 02-12-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by peter borger, posted 02-11-2003 10:16 PM peter borger has not yet responded

    
mark24
Member (Idle past 3237 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 150 of 199 (32020)
02-12-2003 6:31 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by peter borger
02-11-2003 9:10 PM


Peter,

quote:
PB: according to you a transitionform is an organism that is halfway becoming another organism, if I recall properly?

You don't.

A transitional is a form that possesses characters that are part way between two separate taxa, &/or a mix of character between two taxa.

Now, for the 9th time, define "transitional form" as predicted by the ToE.

quote:
PB: I had a look at the fossil record and if the ToE has been born out of this record (18th-19th century is even worse) it must have been done by somebody with a huge imagination.

And of course you honestly compared it to what expectation, exactly? Your honest comparison between the fossils themselves & what is actually predicted by the ToE? I think not. Peter, your words are empty.

quote:
PB: It isn't 'lalalalala', it is hummmmmmmmmmmmmm. For a better effect of hearing nothing. Listen, Mark, as long as I am able to defend my position better than any evo on the board, I am allowed to do that.

No, it's "lalalalalalalala". You aren't even prepared to look at the ToE's prediction, if you did, then you might go "hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm".

quote:
PB: I only demonstrate that this is a useless discussion. It is always about definitions.

In order to have a discussion, the terms must be defined. Why do you think this practice is useless? How can you possibly have a discussion when the point of disagreement is undefined? How do you know you are even in disagreement, for chrissakes? You appear to have decided in advance of knowing what the ToE predicts. The discussion that is so "useless" hasn't yet begun, I appear to be the only one prepared to define terms so that the discussion can take place at all.

More equivocation.

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by peter borger, posted 02-11-2003 9:10 PM peter borger has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
89
10
11121314Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019