Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8890 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-18-2019 1:07 AM
203 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, PaulK, Pressie (4 members, 199 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 847,623 Year: 2,660/19,786 Month: 742/1,918 Week: 29/301 Day: 1/28 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
78
9
1011
...
14Next
Author Topic:   IC & the Cambrian Explosion for Ahmad...cont..
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 1820 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 121 of 199 (31717)
02-08-2003 1:41 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by peter borger
01-15-2003 9:34 PM


Peter,

PB: THIS IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS WHAT THE GUToB PREDICTS. It is however NOT evolutionism. Evolve = slowly developing, like a story plot develops. It is from Latin: evolvere.

DB: First of all, the word "evolution" is from the latin root -evolutio- which means "to unroll".

After reading your posts I begin to wonder if you are not a preformationist in disguise?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by peter borger, posted 01-15-2003 9:34 PM peter borger has not yet responded

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5709 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 122 of 199 (31721)
02-08-2003 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by edge
02-08-2003 12:43 AM


Dear Edge,

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edge: Does this mean that you want to bail out on transitional fossils?
Bail out? On the contrary. Nobody showed anything that is worthy discussing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edge: Well, maybe that has to do with your starting material. We were simply pointing out that evolution explains the fossil record that we know about. Creationism does not.

PB: Assertions based upon assumptions. I am pretty sure that creationists will not agree with you, and are able to present you a scientific alternative. Do you actually read their mails?

From a GUToB stance I would expect that producers and reducers are the first organism to prepare the planet for the coming of man. And now you will point at the dinosaurs. However, do you know what function they had in the big picture? If yes, please let me know.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Archeopteryx is a bird according to cladist. What else do you have?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edge: We have features showing a transition from reptile to bird.

PB: Do you mean that you and your wife (?) have these features?

Edge: We also pointed out that some have classified it as a reptile in the past. If this was the case, why is/was there confusion as to its classification?

PB: There is confusion because the paradigm is wrong. From a wrong paradigm one cannot arrive at sound conclusions.

Edge: You have studiously avoided these questions and simply declared them 'unworthy.' LOL! That's convenient for you. I think I'll remember that one, PB.

PB: If you think that I am avoiding questions you must be new on this board. However, you are not, so you are obtuse deliberately. I never avoid questions, but for me some questions are not so interesting anymore. Like whether Archaeopteryx is a bird or a reptile. It is neither. It is Archaeopteryx (MPG).
For instance, if we only had known the platypus from the fossil record it probably would have been 'recognised' as a primitive transitionform. It is however nothing but Platypus (MPG). I expect from the fossil record only the Platypus (MPG), probably with minor variations with respect to size of bonestructure.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A scull of a dog-like reptile? Doglike reptile? Reptile? Assumptions, assumptions, and claims based upon assumptions. That's all you have. Anyway, if you can show me the evidence, be my guest.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edge: You have been given some of the evidence, and have chosen to ignore it without an explanation. Why should we bother proceeding?

PB: Well, I like to proceed because I wanna find out whether evolutionism is tenable on scientific grounds. I say it isn't, and I already provided compelling evidence for that. You, on the contrary keep claiming things without provision of compelling --beyond any doubt-- evidence.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: If anybody should be embarrased it is Page, not me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edge: You mean you are proud of your ignorance of the fossil record?

PB: It would be nice for evolutionism that you could demonstrate compelling --no doubt-- evidence for evolution from microbe to man. Not assertions based upon assumptions, please. For stories I will attend a Dawkins lecture, so please keep it scientific.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you go to a watch a soccer game the looser wins, I presume. Yes, the evo's logic is amazing. And they are also famous for drawing conclusion (later more about that).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edge: I don't know what game you are talking about. I am talking about your vacuous definition of transitional fossils.

PB: What is wrong with the definition? Please point out.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, present the evidence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edge: This has been done. You have not responded. I am not going to go back on a wild goose chase and dredge up old posts meant for you.

PB: If it has been done that it must have gone by unnoticed. I didn't get an example beyond Archaeopteryx and Cynodontia.
A flying squirrel is on its way to a become a bat, I guess.

It should be clear that I do not belief a single word of evolutionism's claim that a random process gave rise to man from microbe. It is a genetic impossibility.
It's been proven that I was right in my claim on NRM (still denied by the atheists on this board), and I will be right again.

Best wishes,
Peter


This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by edge, posted 02-08-2003 12:43 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by edge, posted 02-08-2003 11:49 AM peter borger has responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 4451
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 123 of 199 (31735)
02-08-2003 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by peter borger
02-08-2003 2:36 AM


quote:
Edge: Does this mean that you want to bail out on transitional fossils?

Bail out? On the contrary. Nobody showed anything that is worthy discussing.

Edge: Well, maybe that has to do with your starting material. We were simply pointing out that evolution explains the fossil record that we know about. Creationism does not.

PB: Assertions based upon assumptions. I am pretty sure that creationists will not agree with you, and are able to present you a scientific alternative. Do you actually read their mails?


Really? You think that creationists will disagree with me?

And just what 'scientific alternative' will they present to us? I haven't heard one yet. Are you talking about something like the multiple surge, fast-slow, violent-gentle, wet-dry, rapidly-slowly depostion model of TC and TB? The same one they both say has some serious problems? Or are you talking about Baumgardner's catastrophic plate tectonics model that sterilized the earth 4000 years ago? This is the type of model that is usually presented by creationists.

quote:
From a GUToB stance I would expect that producers and reducers are the first organism to prepare the planet for the coming of man. And now you will point at the dinosaurs. However, do you know what function they had in the big picture? If yes, please let me know.

Maybe they just wanted their kids to go to college. Why should the dinosaurs have a purpose? Why do you anthropomorphize?

quote:
The Archeopteryx is a bird according to cladist. What else do you have?

Edge: We have features showing a transition from reptile to bird.

PB: Do you mean that you and your wife (?) have these features?


Another meaningful statement from PB. Nevertheless, we all have some features in common with both birds and reptiles... Just why is that?

quote:
Edge: We also pointed out that some have classified it as a reptile in the past. If this was the case, why is/was there confusion as to its classification?

PB: There is confusion because the paradigm is wrong. From a wrong paradigm one cannot arrive at sound conclusions.


But why was there confusion? Why was archie confused with a reptile? Could it be that it is a transitional form?

quote:
Edge: You have studiously avoided these questions and simply declared them 'unworthy.' LOL! That's convenient for you. I think I'll remember that one, PB.

PB: If you think that I am avoiding questions you must be new on this board. However, you are not, so you are obtuse deliberately. I never avoid questions, but for me some questions are not so interesting anymore.


Yeah, I know what you mean. The 'dust on the moon' argument makes my eyes glaze over.

quote:
Like whether Archaeopteryx is a bird or a reptile. It is neither. It is Archaeopteryx (MPG).

Really? Once again, your logic astounds me. Since it is neither do you think it could be a transitioanl form?

quote:
For instance, if we only had known the platypus from the fossil record it probably would have been 'recognised' as a primitive transitionform. It is however nothing but Platypus (MPG). I expect from the fossil record only the Platypus (MPG), probably with minor variations with respect to size of bonestructure.

Okay, just what would platypus be transitional from and to? You logic falls down here.

quote:
A scull of a dog-like reptile? Doglike reptile? Reptile? Assumptions, assumptions, and claims based upon assumptions. That's all you have. Anyway, if you can show me the evidence, be my guest.

Edge: You have been given some of the evidence, and have chosen to ignore it without an explanation. Why should we bother proceeding?

PB: Well, I like to proceed because I wanna find out whether evolutionism is tenable on scientific grounds.


BS. You have already decided. Your many earlier statements make this clear.

quote:
I say it isn't, and I already provided compelling evidence for that. You, on the contrary keep claiming things without provision of compelling --beyond any doubt-- evidence.

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

quote:
PB: If anybody should be embarrased it is Page, not me.

Edge: You mean you are proud of your ignorance of the fossil record?

PB: It would be nice for evolutionism that you could demonstrate compelling --no doubt-- evidence for evolution from microbe to man.


Oh great! Sure. Providing compelling evidence to an absolutist is impossible. THanks for the task!

quote:
Not assertions based upon assumptions, please. For stories I will attend a Dawkins lecture, so please keep it scientific.

This has all been done in the literature. Perhaps you have missed it.

quote:
Edge: I don't know what game you are talking about. I am talking about your vacuous definition of transitional fossils.

PB: What is wrong with the definition? Please point out.


Well, I don't feel myself to be an elementary school teacher. You will need to figure this out on your own.

quote:
PB: If it has been done that it must have gone by unnoticed.

That doesn't surprise me.

quote:
It should be clear that I do not belief a single word of evolutionism's claim that a random process gave rise to man from microbe.

Well, there's your problem. You only know the cartoon version of evolution presented to you by professional creationists. Try reading some mainstream literature.

quote:
It is a genetic impossibility.

But a paleontological necessity. There is no other viable way of explaining the fossil record.

quote:
It's been proven that I was right in my claim on NRM (still denied by the atheists on this board), and I will be right again.

I will leave this to others to refute. As far as I know this board is not about NRMism vs creationism.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by peter borger, posted 02-08-2003 2:36 AM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by peter borger, posted 02-10-2003 11:28 PM edge has responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4451
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 124 of 199 (31737)
02-08-2003 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by DBlevins
02-08-2003 1:27 AM


DBlevins,

Welcome aboard. Hope you have some fun here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by DBlevins, posted 02-08-2003 1:27 AM DBlevins has not yet responded

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5709 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 125 of 199 (31745)
02-08-2003 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by DBlevins
02-08-2003 1:27 AM


[deleted duplication]

[This message has been edited by peter borger, 02-08-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by DBlevins, posted 02-08-2003 1:27 AM DBlevins has not yet responded

    
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5709 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 126 of 199 (31746)
02-08-2003 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by DBlevins
02-08-2003 1:27 AM


Dear DB,

DB: The argument of the fossil record's incompleteness as evidence for your position is specious. The supposed lack of transitional forms has two good reasonings behind it.

PB: I was expecting good reasons.

DB: 1) The fact that everything that dies doesn't become fossilized

PB: Since this is true it would be expected that the fossil record reflects this. Isn't it peculiar that all major transition forms are missing? As if erosion and the fossilisation process is discriminatory.

DB: 2) Evolutionary change is episodic.

PB: No, it is not. Evolution is something that has never been observed. It is not episodic. It is non-existent. This whole episodic thing has been invented to explain away the observation.

DB: By the way, Paleontologists have discovered many examples of transitional forms.

PB: like the Archaeopteryx and cynodontia I guess. I know you will eagerly take them as transitional forms, but nothing transitional here. Simply another complete MPG.

DB: If you have time I recomend you read:

Thewissen, J. G. M. and M. Aria 1994. Fossil evidence for the origin of aquatic locomotion in archaeocete whales. Science 263: 210-12.

PB: Yeah, I know this paper. Fossil evidence of another MPG.

DB: Evolution is a fact: it is the mechanism that is open to debate.

PB: "Variation is a fact: the mechanisms for variation are preexistent in the genome"

DB: By the way, this is my first post but hopefully not my last.

PB: Depends on several factors.

Best wishes,
Peter


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by DBlevins, posted 02-08-2003 1:27 AM DBlevins has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Andya Primanda, posted 02-08-2003 10:08 PM peter borger has not yet responded

    
mark24
Member (Idle past 3239 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 127 of 199 (31756)
02-08-2003 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by peter borger
02-07-2003 8:41 PM


Peter,

quote:

M:For at least the sixth time, define transitional form as predicted by the ToE.

PB: I already did that weeks ago: 'A transition form is a form of transition that forms a transition between forms.'

Brilliant, isn't it


This isn't a valid definition. You are failing to elucidate, specifically, committing a fallacy of circular definition.

quote:

http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/circle.htm

Circular Definition

The definition includes the term being defined as a part of the definition.


So, no, it's fallacious, & not "brilliant" at all. Try again.

My comment stands:

quote:
PB:Why can't evolutionists never give specific answers to specific questions?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

M: You have to be shittin' me!

For at least the sixth time, define transitional form as predicted by the ToE.


quote:
The Archeopteryx is a bird according to cladist.

And they are also diapsids, peter, a sub-clade of that is the dinosaurs, so they are dinosaurs, too. It's also a sarcopterygian if your really serious about cladistics. Although I'm not sure how quoting cladisical results helps your case, since the evolutionary lineage from birds shows they are clearly related to the reptiles, oop, sorry, basal amniotes.

Mark

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by peter borger, posted 02-07-2003 8:41 PM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by peter borger, posted 02-10-2003 10:13 PM mark24 has responded

    
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 128 of 199 (31765)
02-08-2003 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by peter borger
02-08-2003 3:29 PM


quote:
Thewissen, J. G. M. and M. Aria 1994. Fossil evidence for the origin of aquatic locomotion in archaeocete whales. Science 263: 210-12.

PB: Yeah, I know this paper. Fossil evidence of another MPG.


Dr Borger, did all whales come from one MPG (Ambulocetus?) or should they be split into three MPGs (archaeocetes(paraphyletic), toothed whales(paraphyletic), baleen whales (monophyletic)) or four (archaeocetes, baleen whales, sperm whales, dolphins (including orca)) or five (archaeocetes, baleen whales, sperm whales, dolphins, orca) or one MPG=one genus, or one MPG=one species like Homo vs Pan?

[This message has been edited by Andya Primanda, 02-08-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by peter borger, posted 02-08-2003 3:29 PM peter borger has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Andya Primanda, posted 02-12-2003 9:21 AM Andya Primanda has not yet responded

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5709 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 129 of 199 (31910)
02-10-2003 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by mark24
02-08-2003 8:27 PM


Dear mark,

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
M:For at least the sixth time, define transitional form as predicted by the ToE.
PB: I already did that weeks ago: 'A transition form is a form of transition that forms a transition between forms.'

Brilliant, isn't it
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This isn't a valid definition. You are failing to elucidate, specifically, committing a fallacy of circular definition.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/circle.htm

Circular Definition

The definition includes the term being defined as a part of the definition.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MP: So, no, it's fallacious, & not "brilliant" at all. Try again.

PB: Talking about circular definitions. What about "survival of the fittest"? Darwin's brilliant invention?

Best wishes,
Peter


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by mark24, posted 02-08-2003 8:27 PM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by edge, posted 02-10-2003 11:21 PM peter borger has not yet responded
 Message 131 by edge, posted 02-10-2003 11:21 PM peter borger has not yet responded
 Message 133 by mark24, posted 02-11-2003 4:10 AM peter borger has responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 4451
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 130 of 199 (31913)
02-10-2003 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by peter borger
02-10-2003 10:13 PM


quote:
MP: So, no, it's fallacious, & not "brilliant" at all. Try again.

PB: Talking about circular definitions. What about "survival of the fittest"? Darwin's brilliant invention?


Non sequitur, Peter. Did you want to start a new thread?

Or is this dodge just your way of saying that you won't give us a definion, brillian or otherwise?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by peter borger, posted 02-10-2003 10:13 PM peter borger has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4451
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 131 of 199 (31914)
02-10-2003 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by peter borger
02-10-2003 10:13 PM


Double post eliminated.

[This message has been edited by edge, 02-10-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by peter borger, posted 02-10-2003 10:13 PM peter borger has not yet responded

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5709 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 132 of 199 (31915)
02-10-2003 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by edge
02-08-2003 11:49 AM


dear Edge,

Thanks for you lengthy response. The following is tale telling for mankind:

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?

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.

best wishes,
Peter


This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by edge, posted 02-08-2003 11:49 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by edge, posted 02-11-2003 9:21 PM peter borger has not yet responded

    
mark24
Member (Idle past 3239 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 133 of 199 (31928)
02-11-2003 4:10 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by peter borger
02-10-2003 10:13 PM


Peter B/ The Unartful Dodger,

quote:
MP: So, no, it's fallacious, & not "brilliant" at all. Try again.

PB: Talking about circular definitions. What about "survival of the fittest"? Darwin's brilliant invention?


What of it? I'm not arguing it, it's irrelevant to the discussion.

Now, define "transitional form" as a prediction of the ToE.

Mark

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by peter borger, posted 02-10-2003 10:13 PM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by peter borger, posted 02-11-2003 5:14 PM mark24 has responded

    
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5709 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 134 of 199 (31970)
02-11-2003 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by mark24
02-11-2003 4:10 AM


Dear mark,

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MP: So, no, it's fallacious, & not "brilliant" at all. Try again.
PB: Talking about circular definitions. What about "survival of the fittest"? Darwin's brilliant invention?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MP: What of it? I'm not arguing it, it's irrelevant to the discussion.

PB: So, you agree that Darwin set up a tautology? If he is allowed to set up a tautology, why not me?

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.
It is clear, however, that there used to be flying, unfeathered MPGs. Why is it so hard to get that there were also flying, feathered MPGs like Archaeopteryx? We still see that today. Unfeathered flying MPGs (commonly known as bats) and feathered flying MPGs (commonly named birds). [Sometimes they even have claws to climb (Hoatzin MPG)]

Biology with the GUToB is easy.

Best wishes,
Peter


This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by mark24, posted 02-11-2003 4:10 AM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by mark24, posted 02-11-2003 7:32 PM peter borger has responded

    
mark24
Member (Idle past 3239 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 135 of 199 (31981)
02-11-2003 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by peter borger
02-11-2003 5:14 PM


Peter B,

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.


Er, I DID define "transitional form", but it has nothing to do with your irrelevant parody. If you want to see what it was, track back through this thread, I'm not doing the work for you.

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? 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". 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.

Mark

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by peter borger, posted 02-11-2003 5:14 PM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by peter borger, posted 02-11-2003 9:10 PM mark24 has responded

    
Prev1
...
78
9
1011
...
14Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019