Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-21-2019 6:20 AM
42 online now:
Percy (Admin), Tangle (2 members, 40 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,522 Year: 3,559/19,786 Month: 554/1,087 Week: 144/212 Day: 11/49 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
16171819
20
21Next
Author Topic:   On Transitional Species (SUMMATION MESSAGES ONLY)
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2444 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 287 of 314 (609147)
03-17-2011 1:28 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by Taq
03-16-2011 11:36 AM


Re: Kind of The Point ....
The frog makes my case. Whats being dissected is a recently live creature and so its actual biological elements are still here. its not just a bunch of trivial bones.
The glory of biology and the power that evolution tries to say it has to turn a bug into a bigger bug or buffalo is what the prestige of biological research is about. bones are a trivial detail dealing with linited conclusions. certainly nothing to do with the origin of creatures without presumptions first being accepted.
come on.
Biology is about life. nOt a few bones without any life.
in fact when the creature lives i would say bones are not alive like the actual moving organism.
Evolution is not based on biological research but merely on very secondary results of biological processes.
this is why it doesn't prove its case or accept its case is proven false,.
Evolution ain't doing no biology.
most of it is founded on geology, raw anatomy, and today specuilative genetic concepts.

Without the geology or the opposition of geology evolution is simply untenable.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Taq, posted 03-16-2011 11:36 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by Taq, posted 03-17-2011 11:06 AM Robert Byers has responded

    
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2444 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 288 of 314 (609148)
03-17-2011 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 283 by Coyote
03-16-2011 12:15 PM


Re: Kind of The Point ....
Coyote writes:

You are not doing biology in studying fossils.
You are simply drawing conclusions about former biological systems located in individual creatures.

comparing anatomy, by way of fossils, is just comparing a special case of bone material remains. its not biology or zoology.

You are wrong in everything you say here.

And yes, I am a bone expert. From bones I can tell a great deal about the individuals and how they lived. Age, sex, height, build, pathological conditions, injuries, diet, and sometimes even probable cause of death can all be told from bones. Using DNA we can tell a great deal about lineages and relationships. Specialists can tell a whole lot more than just the basics I've mentioned above.

And that information, in turn, can be used to study anthropology, paleodemography, migration patterns, and a host of other specialized fields--including aspects of biology and zoology.

(You are trying to substitute fervent religious belief for real-world knowledge. It isn't working. See tagline.)

bones can tell only details of a living creature. Yet its not telling about the actual biological reality of a creature.
biology is about living things. not teeth and bones.
In these ideas evolution must demonstrate actual use of biology and not mere casts of biological agents.
A picture of a car isn't the same thing as a great machine as the car.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Coyote, posted 03-16-2011 12:15 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by MacCanuck, posted 03-17-2011 1:00 PM Robert Byers has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 289 of 314 (609151)
03-17-2011 2:01 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by Robert Byers
03-17-2011 1:15 AM


Re: Kind of The Point ....
Yet its not biology. Its just questions about some critter.

The key word being "critter". How can questions about a "critter" not be biological questions?

Biology isn't being done where geology and casts therein are the only things to be studied.

I think I'll let biologists tell me when biology is being done, thank you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Robert Byers, posted 03-17-2011 1:15 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12579
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 290 of 314 (609172)
03-17-2011 8:14 AM


Notice of Intention to Close Soon
One side seems to have run out of ammunition and is offering only unsupported assertions, and this is causing the thread to turn more toward taking note of this situation and away from actual discussion, so unless the situation changes then when this thread passes 300 posts I'm going to request summations.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

    
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 180 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 291 of 314 (609175)
03-17-2011 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by Robert Byers
03-16-2011 2:42 AM


Re: Kind of The Point ....
Robert Byers writes:

Your wrong.
Darwin INSISTED that without the presumptions of geology a reader was wasting his time reading his books on evolution.
Time is essential for the claims of evolution turing a ant into a armidillo.

I'll note that this does not address what I actually said and then leave you to reply to the others who've picked up on this.

if the fossil record did not show time sequences and so claimed biological sequences evolutionism would hardly have anything to talk about regarding evidence.

Apart from the hierarchical arrangement of species, developmental biology, homology, gene sequences, endogenous retroviral sequences, gene families, protein families, pseudogenes, and on and on and on.

Read any school book on the evidences and they emphasive the fossil record as proof.

I find school books a pretty poor source of scientific information. They're aimed at a very ill-informed reader and their primary basis for presenting evidence is heavily constrained by time and the need for the evidence to be understandable to its audience.

The genetic claims are very recent and morphology claims always included the claims of progression from fossils.

This is simply incorrect. Most lines of morphological evidence require no fossils (although fossils may support them), and many lines of morphological evidence are used in the absence of fossils - as they were in Darwin's time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Robert Byers, posted 03-16-2011 2:42 AM Robert Byers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by Robert Byers, posted 03-22-2011 10:39 PM Dr Jack has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7672
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 292 of 314 (609185)
03-17-2011 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by Robert Byers
03-17-2011 1:28 AM


Re: Kind of The Point ....
The frog makes my case. Whats being dissected is a recently live creature and so its actual biological elements are still here. its not just a bunch of trivial bones.

Right here you have proven that your arguments are entirely arbitrary. The frog is dead. According to you, studying a dead animal is not biology . . . unless it hasn't been dead for an arbitrary amount of time that you make up on the spot. Fossils still retain biological elements, such as the muscle anchor points, brain features as seen in the cranium, etc.

Biology is about life. nOt a few bones without any life.

Therefore, dissecting a dead frog is not biology according to your definition. The frog has no life. All we have are some parts left over from when the animal was alive.

Evolution is not based on biological research but merely on very secondary results of biological processes.

I am tempted to make this into my signature to let everyone know just how low creationists will stoop.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Robert Byers, posted 03-17-2011 1:28 AM Robert Byers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by Robert Byers, posted 03-22-2011 10:45 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 293 of 314 (609189)
03-17-2011 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by Robert Byers
03-16-2011 2:28 AM


Re: Prestin -changeo
this still is a great point for like mechanism equals like genetic score

No it isn't, the genetic scores are not closer for the dolphins and bats, unless you employ some highly selective criteria. They are closer if you look at scores for amino acid identity or only the DNA representing non-synonymous substitutions.

What they actually show is that you can have functionally similar proteins from quite divergent DNA sequences, although certain specific residues may be constrained. So quite the opposite of your point in fact.

and so its a later adaptation and its from innate triggers in the body and not wild mutation chances.

None of that is supported at all by this example.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Robert Byers, posted 03-16-2011 2:28 AM Robert Byers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by Robert Byers, posted 03-22-2011 10:49 PM Wounded King has responded

    
MacCanuck
Junior Member (Idle past 2479 days)
Posts: 1
Joined: 03-17-2011


Message 294 of 314 (609203)
03-17-2011 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by Robert Byers
03-17-2011 1:32 AM


Re: Kind of The Point ....
So you are claiming, Byers, that the field of comparative anatomy is not in fact a biological science? And that the study of biomechanics can teach us nothing real about extinct or extant animals? Both these assertions are absurd and seem to have been based on a erroneous notion of what constitutes biology. But beyond the fact that we CAN glean valuable information from a skeleton, one sees skeletal characteristics that identify transitional forms everywhere. I honestly haven't read the other 293 posts so this may be redundant, but in the fossil record we see various fish in the fossil record whose pectoral fins have transitioned from the multitude of bones seen in actinopterygians to the one bone-two bones-many bones pattern seen in tetrapods.
And what of whales? Some of the best transitional forms around are whales. Pakicetids, Ambulocetids, REmmingtonocetids, Protocetids, Basilosaurus etc. Ignoring for the moment all the earlier whale ancestors, Basilosaurus is a whale that still has hind legs. Whales evolved from terrestrial ancestors (likely mesonychids), so it is unsurprising that we find these transitional forms that still possess reduced hindlimbs. Basilosaurus is clearly a transitional form. Unless you are going to claim that bones are so uninformative that they can't be used to identify an animal as aquatic and then assert that Basilosaurus was in fact terrestrial.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Robert Byers, posted 03-17-2011 1:32 AM Robert Byers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by Robert Byers, posted 03-23-2011 12:22 AM MacCanuck has not yet responded

    
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2444 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 295 of 314 (609764)
03-22-2011 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by Dr Jack
03-17-2011 9:38 AM


Re: Kind of The Point ....
Morphology lines includes living creatures but fossil creatures are the great emphasis when telling everyone evolution explains biology.
To diminish the need of the fossil record, and so a geological point, to justify evolution is not what most people would understand.
Again Darwin insisted that his idea was worthless unless the presumption of geological time and fossils within in it was not first accepted by a rader of his books.
Anyways all evolution eduction is always about the progression of creatures by way of fossils. From big catergories of divisions of life. Primitive to high. Right across the ages with this order or that.
It is a thing to run from where geology has the importance it has in a unrelated subject like biology.
Biology can not be based on a foreign subject for its claims.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Dr Jack, posted 03-17-2011 9:38 AM Dr Jack has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by Coyote, posted 03-22-2011 10:52 PM Robert Byers has not yet responded
 Message 301 by Dr Jack, posted 03-23-2011 5:26 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

    
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2444 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 296 of 314 (609765)
03-22-2011 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by Taq
03-17-2011 11:06 AM


Re: Kind of The Point ....
The frog thing is a hopping good point for me.
i'm saying that trivial casts of mere bone structures of creatures is not a study in the living life systems that we call biology.
Frogs being dissected is biology as its tissue substance is what is being dissected. if this was not so then in biology class frog bones from semesters past could be brought in boxes with like biological knowledge gleaned from them as a cold slimy one.

evolutionism has had a logical flaw in its claims that it is a biological study. The great claims of progression have not been from biology but geology. Evolution may deal with some attempts at some actual biological points but still its about pickaxes and blowing dirt.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Taq, posted 03-17-2011 11:06 AM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by Coyote, posted 03-22-2011 10:58 PM Robert Byers has not yet responded

    
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2444 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 297 of 314 (609766)
03-22-2011 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by Wounded King
03-17-2011 11:31 AM


Re: Prestin -changeo
Well this was what i read from those who study the dna of these creatures sonar ability. they said there was a connection in its makeup.
I can't get into it. Yet the press reports allow me to say it follows that sonar ability is a late adaption based on common laws of biology triggering innate abilities to adapt mechanisms.
common program and not unlikelyness of mutations and selection.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by Wounded King, posted 03-17-2011 11:31 AM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by Wounded King, posted 03-23-2011 6:50 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 181 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 298 of 314 (609767)
03-22-2011 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by Robert Byers
03-22-2011 10:39 PM


Re: Kind of The Point ....
Again Darwin insisted that his idea was worthless unless the presumption of geological time and fossils within in it was not first accepted by a rader of his books.

When Darwin published his Origin only one hominid fossil was readily available, and it was not well understood having been found only a couple of years earlier. A few other hominid fossils had been found, but their placement was not yet understood. Dating studies were limited as well.

So are you saying that what Darwin wrote 150 years ago, with that paucity of fossils, still holds today? Are you unaware that the field of paleontology has made great advances since 1859? And that dating studies have advanced tremendously as well?

Darwin was being cautious, as scientists generally are. Nothing wrong with that, is there?

But if the reader (for example, you) has not kept up with current findings, Darwin is hardly to blame.

And in fact, Darwin has been shown to be substantially correct in his estimation of the "presumption of geological time and fossils within in it," whereas creationists have consistently made incorrect pronunciations on these same issues. YEC is just one example. There are many more.

(See tagline.)


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by Robert Byers, posted 03-22-2011 10:39 PM Robert Byers has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 181 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 299 of 314 (609768)
03-22-2011 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by Robert Byers
03-22-2011 10:45 PM


The point has turned...
Robert Byers writes:

evolutionism has had a logical flaw in its claims that it is a biological study. The great claims of progression have not been from biology but geology. Evolution may deal with some attempts at some actual biological points but still its about pickaxes and blowing dirt.


If you were aware of the studies of such authors as Rightmire, McHenry, and Corruccini (and many others), applying multivariate analyses to human bones and early hominid fossils, you would not make such a statement.

Just google these gentlemen and see what they have written.

Ignorance is not bliss. Unfortunately, it is the creationists' stock in trade.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Robert Byers, posted 03-22-2011 10:45 PM Robert Byers has not yet responded

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2444 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 300 of 314 (609776)
03-23-2011 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by MacCanuck
03-17-2011 1:00 PM


Re: Kind of The Point ....
Mechanis and anatomy are fine to tel details of creatures. Yet its not biology as biology is understood. Biology is about actual living tissue and great complexity thereof. Bones are just what they are. Harden calcium, I think,.
to have the prestige of biology and so to make claims of biological origins and mechanisms thereto one must be dealing in a living machine.
Evolutionary biology is in fact geological musings that make biological assertions.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by MacCanuck, posted 03-17-2011 1:00 PM MacCanuck has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by Taq, posted 03-23-2011 11:12 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

    
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 180 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 301 of 314 (609797)
03-23-2011 5:26 AM
Reply to: Message 295 by Robert Byers
03-22-2011 10:39 PM


Re: Kind of The Point ....
Anyways all evolution eduction is always about the progression of creatures by way of fossils. From big catergories of divisions of life. Primitive to high. Right across the ages with this order or that.

Again, this is simply not so. Have you studied evolution at post-secondary level? I have. And I can tell you that a degree level evolution course spends little time on fossils. Fossils support and inform evolutionary theory but they do no from its centrepiece.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by Robert Byers, posted 03-22-2011 10:39 PM Robert Byers has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
16171819
20
21Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019