Great Debate: Nuggin v. Randman

Okay, I have two dogs. One has a very short base of the spine, but wags it all the time. The other one has a very long base of the spine but almost never wags it.If you want to call the vertabrae-like bones south of the hip "base of spine" then lets call them "base of spine" on every animal. Don't make up terms that just apply to humans.Or, alternatively, can you explain, if we are not related to the other primates, why only the great apes are lacking long "base of spines" while everything else has longer ones.

Too semantic an arguement."Is Pakicetus an ancestor of modern whales" would be worth arguing.The original statement is like "Is Lucy Human?". It's easy to show that Lucy is not human, but that doesn't say anything about evolution or her place on the tree.When people say "Pakicetus is a whale" what they are saying is "Pakicetus is part of a family tree, the living members of that tree are whales".But, again, this is going to result in hundreds of links to long papers of comparitive anatomy.Let's pick something that's either very speculative - "were there giants?"or let's do something where we can hash out the logic without having to present thesis - "Is there an overlap between the genetic variability of different groups, and if so, doesn't that imply macro evolution?"This message has been edited by Nuggin, 12-12-2005 11:03 AM

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.

re: GiantsI was thinking more along the lines of historical perspective, reasons for giants in mythology other than their actual existance, fossil/skeletal remains supporting their existance, etc

What falsifiable counter arguement have you offered in place of evolution?

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.

Well, just so were coming at it from different sides, I'll take the "no giants" stance.The rest of this should be in the other thread but...We should probably determine what is meant by "giants" as opposed to "tall people".Then I think we can split the discussion into two (perhaps overlapping groups). 1) Historical/literary/mythological references to giants. 2) Physical evidence.In some places there may be both, but obviously we'd expect the physical evidence to more compelling than a literary reference.Let's do it -- when you get back.

True, but all I ask is that you hold your own theories to the same high level of scrutiny you want to apply to other theories.

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