Great Debate: Nuggin v. Randman

I already have ad nauseum. When are you going to respond to my posts in that regard and admit that. I showed specifically where a domestic cat embryo appears most similar to a scaly anteater among a viewing of 11 embryos. Just so fantasy stories don't count. Let's deal with the data and the facts as they are, not as one wished them to be if evolution were true. In other words, it doesn't matter what the data shows because we are going to claim it is evidence for evolution anyway.Your claims here are thus completely unfalsifiable, and regardless, they are not the theory of recapitulation which is quite specific in it's claims. No one suggests that, but it is curious that we can find thousands of one species in a supposed evolutionary chain, but nothing of the 99.9% of the remaining species that would have evolved from that spot to the next and the ones prior.Maybe the most reasonable explanation for not seeing any fossils of 99.9% of the transitional forms, and the subsequent emergence of most features, is that, well, the process didn't happen as evos claim.

I agree that studying embryos seems to show no real guiding principles here, but that's my point. They don't show recapitulation because if they did, it would be fairly clear.I think the idea that some emerging features are vestigal may be beyond are expertise, but I will say that often the claims have been wrong (basically the gill slit thing which you agree with me on).I think if you are going to make an argument based on some potential vestigal features, the name "recapitulation" and the comparitive side-by-side drawings of Haeckel are inappropiate.The side-by-side illustrations, even if they were not doctored which they are, just are not the same thing as focussing on a bumb and saying it's a relic of an ancestral form within the embryonic development.In other words, side by side pics don't actually show recapitulation. They only appear to in Haeckel's drawings because he doctored them and faked the data. So his drawings should be left out, as should the whole side by side drawings to make a claim of recapitulation.The claims you want to make, concerning possible vestigal development, should be made by just showing them. Just show the little bumb, not doctored drawings.I think it makes the case harder to sell for evos, but it makes their case more honest, and that's what we want for people, an honest approach to the data. It's not necessary that people believe evolution is true as much as it is necessary to instill an honest appraisal and approach to data.This message has been edited by randman, 12-11-2005 11:51 PM

There you go again, slipping back into the evo habit of exaggerating the data. If you read my posts, I am pretty clear that I think the idea of hind "legs" is absurd, but use the term "legs" to illustrate a point.More often, I refer to a flipper, and it could be whales have the ability to breed in such a way to produce a whale with a hind flipper.But I also mention how "leg" bones do exist in some whales. Of course, they are not leg bones, but bones attached to the pelvis. So the fact is some whales sometimes do develop bones off the pelvis.My pointing that out is just pointing out a fact, for your benefit, as you seemed unaware of it.

Nuggins, if you want to discuss potential evidence for ID and an ID mechanisms, you are welcome to address my points on those threads.My stance is not to run from the data, but engage it, not by imagining 99.9% of the data is as I claim, but to actually look at what is verifiable and stick with that.As we can see on this thread, evos tend to rely on fabrications such as Haeckel's recapitulation theory.

It seems to escape you that the 1997 study is titled "There is no highly conserved embryonic stage in the vertebrates:...".The descriptions and illustrations taken together paint picture. You can see them, some at least, but they still won't show any of Haeckel's claims as true. Richardson said in 1997 that it's not just the book publishers, but evos were relying in Haeckel's data.

Mere similarity in species is not a strong argument for evolution, as it is also a strong argument for a common designer.The problem is that if you use terms like tails, you are using a very specific term. Everyone knows humans have spines. That is nothing new, but evos act like by calling the base of the spine a tail, that some sort of real evidence is presented.It's a semantic game. The tail of human beings is not actually a tail. It is just the base of the spine. All vertibrates have 2 ends to the spine, and that includes any vertibrates that never conceivably had a protruding tail at any point in thier suppossed evolutionary heritage.It is just not scientific to claim humans have tails because the term, tail, in this context, refers to animal tails that protrude from the body, and we just don't have them.

But we may need to wait a little bit, or we can start, but I won't be posting every day this week.How about one that came up on here; should Pakicetus be called "a whale" (English term)?Specifically, is that an overstatement?

The problem is that calling something a whale, and something an ancestor to whales, are 2 different things. Imo, this is once again the use of gross overstatement and exagerration so typical of evolutionist claims. OK, but as scientific question, not a biblical one. That way we are not mixing revelation and the scientific method.Sound good?If you want to talk about genetics, my suggestion would be to try to establish, but it would not be a debate, if similar traits are produced by similar genes and to what degree this is true. Imo, this is an important question in answering if similar DNA can be convergent or the result of just similar design. Comparisons between marsupials and placentals might be a good place to consider the issue.The problem is I think the jury is still out on a lot of stuff.This message has been edited by randman, 12-12-2005 12:46 PM

There are all sorts of deformities out there, and some genuine fully formed anamolous traits.Since some people have 6 fingers, why not claim we descended from a 6 finger ape?The reason is just because evos can't find any 6 finger apes. So any deformity that could possibly be considered analogous to other bio-species of more "primitive forms", evos insist they are the result of recapitulation. It's not science. It's just a blatant subjective call. There's no evidence that what caused the mutations are the result of a recapitulation process. It's not a falsifiable claim.The proof is any claim that you cannot fit into evolutionary schemes, you say that mutation was not recapitulation, and any that can, which are very, very few, you insist are recapitulation.Once again, no matter what the evidence is, you will claim it supports evolution, and as such, the claims are no falsifiable.

It's probably not a good idea to speculate on the reasons for claiming their historical existence when we actually have bones with human tools fit for the giants, thus conclusively showing they did exist.What is interesting is that some of these giants were said to be large apes, but then they found human tools, and thus confirming that giants exist.A bit of irony is how unscientific evos have been in denying giants. There are plenty of examples of giant forms of other creatures. There is no scientific basis not expect there to be human giants, but there is a prejudicial view against the Bible, and so evos historically scoffed at the idea of giants, basically rejecting sound science (which fits quite well with this thread on Haeckel's drawings).

Nuggin, a counter argument is not necessary for a claim to be unfalsifiable.

OK, I should be back Thursday or Friday. I may be around some tonight, but am getting ready for travel.