|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: TOE and the Reasons for Doubt | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kaichos Man Member (Idle past 4487 days) Posts: 250 From: Tasmania, Australia Joined: |
It was only later that the fossil record was found to support Darwin's theories. As time has passed, the fossil record has offered more and more evidence Not according to evolutionists who are more highly credentialled than yourself, Pandion: "The fossil record simply shows that this prediction [that future research would fill the gaps] is wrong. ...The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor's new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin's predicted pattern, simply looked the other way." (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 45-46)" Oh! I'm a Creationist and I'm using a quote! I must be quote-mining!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
ok so now your quote mining me to teach me a lesson are you? lol
what i said was
Peg writes: Now if you think about the sheer complexity of DNA, you cant possibly imagine that such a structure could come into existence without direction and intelligence...The genetic code which is a requirement for cell reproduction could not have evolved for the reason that Proteins depend on DNA for their formation. But DNA cannot form without pre-existing protein. And without the genetic code, there can be no reproduction in the first place. I think you know what i was saying...but to put it simply, what came first, the DNA or the protein. Both are needed for the genes to function and Proteins depend on DNA for their formation. But DNA cannot form without pre-existing protein so how could they have evolved without direction? Edited by Peg, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
Kaichos Man writes: Oh! I'm a Creationist and I'm using a quote! I must be quote-mining! Yes, you're quote mining, which means taking a quote out of context to, in this case, make it seem that Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall believe something they don't. If you had them both in front of you, both evolutionary scientists of the top rank, and asked them whether they thought the fossil record was consistent with the theory of evolution, what do you think they'd say? Do you think they'd agree with you, or with Pandion? Without having the full context I can only guess that Eldredge and Tattersall were addressing the concept of gradualism and are laying the groundwork for introducing the concept of punctuated equilibrium. Creationists love quote mines so much because with great ease they can lift quotes out of context and make it seem like one of the great claims of creationism, that more and more scientists are rejecting evolution and accepting creationism, is actually true. In a more general sense, quote mining is just the fallacy of argument from authority. Even if all the creationist quote mines were an accurate reflection of their author's opinion, evolution, like all other scientific theories, stands or falls on the evidence. So I think everyone in this thread would be very grateful if the creationist participants would abandon quote mining and focus their attention on the evidence. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kaichos Man Member (Idle past 4487 days) Posts: 250 From: Tasmania, Australia Joined: |
So far, you've done nothing but, is effect, declare the endpoint of a drunkard's walk to be the target destination of a second drunkard's walk and using the improbability of that outcome to claim the first one was too improbable to occur. Buonas nochas, Jacorinta (That's phonetic and almost certainly wrong) You assert that evolution has no target. You are, respectfully wrong. It's target, even though it is unconscious of the fact, is survival. It's purported aiming device is natural selection.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4715 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
Put it down to the fact that it's a bit cumbersome trying to express unwieldy fractions. It's supposed to be read as: "Four to the thousandth power, minus one, divided by four to the thousandth power". So that's a really huge number, minus one, over the same really huge number. Then why not write it as 1- 4-1000? I'd think the more important point here would be that if one is not competent to manipulate the math how can one believe they are competent to apply the math; or using any argument one does not fully understand. Why does one have doubt about the ToE a theory exceedingly well thought out by hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people with a keen understanding of the subject and not have doubt about their own ability to criticize it? Edited by lyx2no, : Change subtitle. Edited by lyx2no, : Punc. Edited by lyx2no, : Grammar. It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say. Anon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jacortina Member (Idle past 5083 days) Posts: 64 Joined: |
Can you quote the sentence ... the VERY NEXT SENTENCE ... that follows that passage?
I can.
quote: So, the context of the passage clearly states that Eldridge believes that the fossil record supports Evolution. You use YOUR quote, leaving that part out, in order to forward YOUR agenda of trying to show that scientists themselves doubt Evolution. That is the very definition of quote-mining and it is thoroughly dishonest.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Percy, evolutionists are the ones telling the story and they print a lot of literature in an attempt to explain it
of course we read it and when the things they say dont add up to the evidence they provide, it leads many people to question them and pick them up on such quotes. for instance, evolution teaches a long and slow progression from species to species, but the evidence is contrary to this. Rather then a long slow development, they show higher categories emerge in a very sudden way in the fossil record that doesnt add up to what they claim evolution is about. If its a slow progession, then why is the evidence showing a sudden appearance of species? Or do you think its wrong of us to question them because we dont do the field study ourselves?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jacortina Member (Idle past 5083 days) Posts: 64 Joined: |
You assert that evolution has no target. You are, respectfully wrong. It's target, even though it is unconscious of the fact, is survival. It's purported aiming device is natural selection. This is every bit as absurd (and as indicative of a serious lack of understanding) as saying that unsupported matter has 'target' of the lowest height and the aiming device is gravity or that the 'target' of raindrops is to coalesce into a puddle with the pothole being the aiming device.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2294 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Peg writes:
I didn't quotemine you. You directly said evolution was impossible without genetic material, when not two sentences before you were talking about that very genetic material.
ok so now your quote mining me to teach me a lesson are you? lol I think you know what i was saying...but to put it simply, what came first, the DNA or the protein.
Completely irrelevant for evolution.
Both are needed for the genes to function and Proteins depend on DNA for their formation. But DNA cannot form without pre-existing protein.
Again, completely irrelevant for evolution. We have the material now, and it evolves.
so how could they have evolved without direction?
Irelevant. It is here now, and it is evolving. I hunt for the truth I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping handMy image is of agony, my servants rape the land Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore. -Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kaichos Man Member (Idle past 4487 days) Posts: 250 From: Tasmania, Australia Joined: |
Rather than challenge well-entrenched evolutionary theory, paleontologists tacitly agreed with their zoological colleagues that the fossil record was too poor to do much beyond supporting, in a general sort of way, the basic thesis that life had evolved Jacorinta, do you know what "tacitly" means? If so, why do you think they agreed "tacitly"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jacortina Member (Idle past 5083 days) Posts: 64 Joined: |
What, no apology for the blatantly dishonest quote-mine?
Frankly, without that, you've shown yourself as disinterested in actual information exchange.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
Hi Peg,
I have a long todo list. This weekend I just completed the in-message image resizing feature, and I've been thinking about what new feature I should tackle next. The "ignore" feature is looking mighty appealing right now. But it won't happen right away, so in the meantime could you just not reply to my messages and I won't reply to yours? Thanks. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Izanagi Member (Idle past 5216 days) Posts: 263 Joined: |
Peg writes:
Of course that's what this thread is about. The problem is your definition of species is far different than what is the generally accepted definition of species. You define species as a larger group. But this thread is about Darwinian evolution and the theory that all life evolved from the simplest forms of life, into the great variety we see including man. thats what this thread is about. One way of backing evolution is by showing an example of speciation. But it's impossible to show you any speciation. It doesn't matter if a subset of mosquitoes are unable to mate with another subset of mosquitoes. In your mind both are the same species. The only evidence you would accept is a mosquito population changing into flies. If I showed you a bacteria culture that came from another culture but changed into bacteria with different traits from the parent, you would probably argue that they were both bacteria and so are the same species. The only way I could even attempt to show you the effects of evolution would be if you and I lived through millions of years of natural history and watched a population change. What this tells me is that you are unwilling to listen to consider the arguments for evolution. You've already decided that evolution is wrong and so have set the bar impossibly high. No amount of evidence short of you physically seeing a process which takes hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of years to witness will convince you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Peg writes: Izanaqi writes:
A black widow is a spider, yes? A tarantula is a spider, yes? If they are both spiders, are they different species? no, for the reason that they are both spiders. the are different 'types' of spider. You really assert that a black widow and a tarantula are the same species? And yet I suppose you will assert that humans and chimps are different species? Will you present us with a definition of "species" other than "because Peg says so"? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
No, its not a pamplet its a 251 page hard cover with over 200 cited references in it bibliography well researched and well written is what it is. Ah, so you do in fact get your nonsense from a mess of creationist propaganda ... but it does indeed have too many pages for me to call it a "pamphlet". True, they have indeed written entire books of this gibberish: I've laughed at them myself, so I sha'n't deny it. How about you try to get your nonsense from well-researched scientific studies based on the observable evidence? Oh, right, because you can't.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024