Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win.
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 166 of 2887 (769676)
09-23-2015 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by Dr Adequate
09-23-2015 10:23 PM


Re: Reptiles to Mammals
Genetics tells us that it can happen
No.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-23-2015 10:23 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-23-2015 10:34 PM Faith has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(4)
Message 167 of 2887 (769678)
09-23-2015 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Faith
09-23-2015 10:26 PM


Re: Reptiles to Mammals
No.
Yes.
Let's ask the Genetics Society of America about evolution and creationism, shall we?
Genetics and evolution are two very closely interwoven disciplines. In fact, evolution might be summarized as population genetics over time. [...] Without evolutionary theory, we would be forced to completely discard much of what we understand about fields such as genetics, botany, zoology, paleontology, and anthropology.
Perhaps they know something you don't. Genetics, for example. I think they know that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Faith, posted 09-23-2015 10:26 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Faith, posted 09-24-2015 2:16 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 168 of 2887 (769690)
09-24-2015 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by Dr Adequate
09-23-2015 10:34 PM


Re: Reptiles to Mammals
Yes.
Let's ask the Genetics Society of America about evolution and creationism, shall we?
Genetics and evolution are two very closely interwoven disciplines. In fact, evolution might be summarized as population genetics over time. [...] Without evolutionary theory, we would be forced to completely discard much of what we understand about fields such as genetics, botany, zoology, paleontology, and anthropology.
Perhaps they know something you don't. Genetics, for example. I think they know that.
That's the usual statement, the party line, no evidence there, just the usual assertion.
In fact population genetics operates in a much shorter time frame (though Pod Mrcaru lizards and Jutland cattle may illustrate the shortest possible), and in millions of years no living thing would still be living. Mutation couldn't possibly keep up with the loss of genetic diversity through normal evolutionary processes, being so rarely beneficial, besides which, as I've shown many times, whatever the source of new genetic material it has to succumb to genetic reduction if new phenotypes are to result, a formula that absolutely defeats the continuation of microevolution beyond the species.
Since so much of evolution is just imagined, along the lines of this transitional fossil discussion, nothing has ever been established as a fact, it's just been assumed to be a fact because the theory is believed:
Evolution is true, therefore this creature must have evolved into that creature, and for that to be the case this arrangement of bones had to have evolved over millions of years into that arrangement of bones although nothing that is known about how genetics works could have brought that about.
I really don't think this is true: "Without evolutionary theory, we would be forced to completely discard much of what we understand about fields such as genetics, botany, zoology, paleontology, and anthropology" except for paleontology of course, but if it is true then they'd be better off without evolutionary theory because it is false.
It's a terrible waste of manpower and human intelligence to keep on under the spell of this false theory.
ABE: I'm so convinced of this I actually feel bad and sometimes wish it weren't true just because so many nice smart people ARE involved in it.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-23-2015 10:34 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-24-2015 3:47 AM Faith has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 169 of 2887 (769692)
09-24-2015 3:47 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by Faith
09-24-2015 2:16 AM


Re: Reptiles to Mammals
Oh, and one more quotation. It's from you:
I do not claim to be a geneticist or even to have more than the most rudimentary understanding of genetics.
In fact population genetics operates in a much shorter time frame (though Pod Mrcaru lizards and Jutland cattle may illustrate the shortest possible), and in millions of years no living thing would still be living. Mutation couldn't possibly keep up with the loss of genetic diversity through normal evolutionary processes, being so rarely beneficial, besides which, as I've shown many times, whatever the source of new genetic material it has to succumb to genetic reduction if new phenotypes are to result, a formula that absolutely defeats the continuation of microevolution beyond the species.
But this is just crap you've made up 'cos of being ignorant of genetics.
Since so much of evolution is just imagined, along the lines of this transitional fossil discussion, nothing has ever been established as a fact, it's just been assumed to be a fact because the theory is believed:
Evolution is true, therefore this creature must have evolved into that creature, and for that to be the case this arrangement of bones had to have evolved over millions of years into that arrangement of bones although nothing that is known about how genetics works could have brought that about.
But this is just crap you've made up 'cos of being ignorant of genetics, paleontology, evolution, and the scientific method.
I'm so convinced of this I actually feel bad and sometimes wish it weren't true just because so many nice smart people ARE involved in it.
And so many dumb jerks on the other side. Truly this is a tragedy. Why couldn't the smart people be right about science and the scientifically illiterate people be wrong about science. That would be both fairer and more plausible. Way more plausible. Way, way more plausible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Faith, posted 09-24-2015 2:16 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Faith, posted 09-24-2015 4:55 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 170 of 2887 (769694)
09-24-2015 4:55 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by Dr Adequate
09-24-2015 3:47 AM


Re: Reptiles to Mammals
Oh, and one more quotation. It's from you:
I do not claim to be a geneticist or even to have more than the most rudimentary understanding of genetics.
Thank you for finally posting that after I don't know how many hints and veiled threats about something I supposedly wrote that to you means I should never say a word about any of this. Yes, I've never claimed more than a rudimentary understanding, but of course I claim to understand enough to make the arguments I make.
And this is awfully, you know, Ad Hominem of you. What is needed isn't an attack on me personally but some evidence that my claims are wrong. For instance so far nobody has shown how any known genetics operation could get us from a certain arrangement of bones in a reptile to a very different arrangement in a mammal, through such and so many generations of just-so changes in that direction, through an apparently intermediate arrangement of bones in that "transitional" therapsid creature. RAZD claimed dog breeds demonstrate the process but they don't: no changing arrangements of bones from one to another dog breed that I know of. Do you? He also keeps saying that the steps beyond a species are microevolution just like the steps that form breeds within a species, which is quite impossible, except of course by word magic which renames whatever is needed to fit the theory.
I wonder if you might be persuaded to give up your endless ad hominems and endless denials of everything I say to offer some kind of explanation of how these things can occur, preferably with examples. You know, actual evidence instead of the endless refrain Evidence, Evidence Evidence, if I say it often enough it will become true.,

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-24-2015 3:47 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-24-2015 1:18 PM Faith has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 171 of 2887 (769719)
09-24-2015 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by Faith
09-23-2015 9:54 PM


Re: Reptiles to Mammals (dogs, cats and cows)
But the definition is wrong, misleading, a fraud, word magic. ...
Well you can't stop evolution by rejecting the definition of a word, Faith. You just need to look around you and you can see evolution happening: there is variation in every generation of every species.
... If in fact the new breed is genetically depleted the idea is absolutely ridiculous that it's a "new species" with the implied ability to evolve further.
Would you ever consider that it is not full "depleted" yet?
Personally I don't see why you get so hung up on this -- it is still reproduction after their own kind, as you assume happened since your purported all expenses paid round the world mega-yacht trip. You claim all living species are the product of that (super hyper-rapid) evolution: why should it end today?
Of course in evolutionary talk it is still reproduction within a clade and all new species will always be members of that clade. So other than your weird insistence on the evolution of life, once it left the ark, ending *suddenly* in your lifetime, there is no real difference in the observation that offspring will always be related to and have traits of their parents.
In other words if it's really a dog but you want to say it's not a dog I can't object because biological scientists named it according to what the theory tells them and not according to whether it makes any sense to call a breed a species that hasn't the genetic wherewithal to produce further variations.
Scientifically speaking it doesn't matter one whit what you call it -- we just happen to call all living organisms and all past organisms a species and give that species a name as a matter of convenience in talking about them. Nature could care less about what we call them.
Scientifically speaking what is important is that life forms nested hierarchies, and when we use cladistics (as is increasingly the case) we say that any offspring of a species in the dogs "megafaunal wolf" clade is still a member of the dogs "megafaunal wolf" clade, ... even if they happen to form a new species.
The only distinction that we make between variety and species is that one (variety) can readily interbreed and the other (species) theoretically can't (altho this appears to be getting somewhat nebulous).
But it doesn't really matter what we call it because words don't control what happens. It just matters to US that we are consistent in what we call it ... because words are used to describe what happens in a meaningful way to promote understanding rather than confusion.
It has not been refuted, ...
It has.
... I've answered every claim. ...
No, you have hand waved and misrepresented your way around the evidence.
... Mutations couldn't make the sort of changes required even if they did produce beneficial changes to any meaningful extent. ...
You mean the sort of changes that you imagine is "required" rather than the sort of changes that actually occur.
... Can't happen and I've shown it can't happen. ...
Except that you haven't, because ... it does happen and has happened and has been observed happening. Evolution and speciation have been observed, and that is all.that.is.necessary.
... The reality is that the whole idea of speciation and increased genetic diversity due to mutation ...
Is an actually observed phenomena. It is a fact.
... is a mental construction without real evidence, a deception based on belief in the false ToE.
Personal opinion is not evidence.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Faith, posted 09-23-2015 9:54 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Faith, posted 09-25-2015 3:58 AM RAZD has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 172 of 2887 (769722)
09-24-2015 9:29 AM


Moderator Requests
Please do not redefine existing terms. Species already has a definition. Accepting the definition is not the same as accepting that new species can form from existing species.
Please do not make empty arguments such as calling something an illusion or a fraud or mental juggling and so forth. It's just a way of ignoring evidence and arguments that people are then forced to repeat.
Please do not claim you've already answered or shown or proved something. Answering or showing or proving something to your own satisfaction means nothing. You have to do it to other people's satisfaction.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Faith, posted 09-24-2015 10:21 AM Admin has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 173 of 2887 (769723)
09-24-2015 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by Admin
09-24-2015 9:29 AM


Re: Moderator Requests
If I can't accept your assessment or comply with your request, what do you suggest?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Admin, posted 09-24-2015 9:29 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Admin, posted 09-24-2015 10:51 AM Faith has replied
 Message 175 by edge, posted 09-24-2015 11:01 AM Faith has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 174 of 2887 (769726)
09-24-2015 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by Faith
09-24-2015 10:21 AM


Re: Moderator Requests
Faith writes:
If I can't accept your assessment or comply with your request, what do you suggest?
The requests boil down to debating in good faith. Don't play games with word definitions. Don't waste people's time by responding to evidence and argument with unsupported aspersions, or by claiming that you've already proved something when everyone knows that in earlier discussions you convinced no one.
You should seek to respond to evidence and argument with your own evidence and argument.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Faith, posted 09-24-2015 10:21 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Faith, posted 09-24-2015 11:05 AM Admin has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 175 of 2887 (769727)
09-24-2015 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by Faith
09-24-2015 10:21 AM


Re: Moderator Requests
If I can't accept your assessment or comply with your request, what do you suggest?
I'm hesitant to to go off-topic and address this question, but how do you expect to have a meaningful discussion if you cannot abide established definitions?
My guess is that you should expect continued ridicule and multiple suspensions, so don't complain when that happens.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Faith, posted 09-24-2015 10:21 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 176 of 2887 (769728)
09-24-2015 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by Admin
09-24-2015 10:51 AM


Re: Moderator Requests
I've answered the only offering of evidence from the other side on this thread with reasoned argument. There has been only that evidence: RAZD's claim that dog breeds illustrate the genetic situation with transitional fossils. They don't, as I've made clear. No other evidence has been offered besides the apparent transitional sequence itself.
Dr. A has said nothing substantive at all.
When I say a particular idea is just mental juggling or the like, I believe I have just shown how it is so it isn't just an empty statement. That's a substantive argument, I SHOW how it's purely imaginative.
But as I said back upthread, if you rule against my objection to the term "new species" perhaps all I can do is leave the thread whether I want to or not. Not a threat and not something I could change my mind about if it's really the only option.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Admin, posted 09-24-2015 10:51 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by PaulK, posted 09-24-2015 11:27 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 180 by edge, posted 09-24-2015 12:09 PM Faith has replied
 Message 185 by RAZD, posted 09-24-2015 1:58 PM Faith has replied
 Message 214 by Admin, posted 09-25-2015 8:22 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 177 of 2887 (769732)
09-24-2015 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Faith
09-24-2015 11:05 AM


Re: Moderator Requests
quote:
I've answered the only offering of evidence from the other side on this thread with reasoned argument. There has been only that evidence
No. I have, for instance seen no substantive argument against the fossil evidence for the "reptile"-mammal transition, for instance.
quote:
When I say a particular idea is just mental juggling or the like, I believe I have just shown how it is so it isn't just an empty statement. That's a substantive argument, I SHOW how it's purely imaginative.
No. In fact outright lying would be a more accurate description
quote:
But as I said back upthread, if you rule against my objection to the term "new species" perhaps all I can do is leave the thread whether I want to or not. Not a threat and not something I could change my mind about if it's really the only option.
If you can't make your case without making ridiculous false accusations then something is badly wrong with your position.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Faith, posted 09-24-2015 11:05 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 178 of 2887 (769733)
09-24-2015 11:37 AM


This should have been part of my previous post:
I did answer the claim that dog breeds illustrate the same transitional situation as the fossils, saying that there is no case I know of where bones have been rearranged to get from one breed to the next. Nobody has answered this. It's been stated many times that it is genetically possible to get such a rearrangement of bones but nobody has given any evidence of this. I don't think it is, I'm sure it isn't. And here's where I point out that the sequence of changes in the fossil bones that would have to evolve between the reptile and the mammal is purely imagined. This is a substantive argument against the ToE, that it really is mostly mental, with very little actual evidence.
So to my mind the next task on this thread is for someone to give evidence that the necessary rearrangement of bones to show an evolutionary connection between those fossils is really genetically possible and not just assumed and imagined.
But I'm prepared to be ruled out of order.
I'll be away for a few hours now I think.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by PaulK, posted 09-24-2015 11:59 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 184 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-24-2015 1:56 PM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(3)
Message 179 of 2887 (769736)
09-24-2015 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by Faith
09-24-2015 11:37 AM


quote:
And here's where I point out that the sequence of changes in the fossil bones that would have to evolve between the reptile and the mammal is purely imagined. This is a substantive argument against the ToE, that it really is mostly mental, with very little actual evidence.
The sequence, of course, has to be based on the actual bone structures, so to call it "purely imagined" is either irrelevant or false. Even worse the *evidence* is the fossils which correspond to stages in the transition. Ignoring dramatic evidence and implying that it does not exist is hardly honest.
quote:
So to my mind the next task on this thread is for someone to give evidence that the necessary rearrangement of bones to show an evolutionary connection between those fossils is really genetically possible and not just assumed and imagined.
RAZD has already done so, although it is not actually necessary. That is the pint of referring to the variation in dogs, although you clearly missed the point. And, I will add, this is an objection based on ignorance. You offer no reason to think that the changes are nor possible at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Faith, posted 09-24-2015 11:37 AM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 180 of 2887 (769737)
09-24-2015 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by Faith
09-24-2015 11:05 AM


Re: Moderator Requests
,,, When I say a particular idea is just mental juggling or the like, I believe I have just shown how it is so it isn't just an empty statement. That's a substantive argument, I SHOW how it's purely imaginative.
I have not participated in this thread, but it appears to be going like most of your threads.
However, I did read your comment that, ' ... old ages are simply out of the question.'
No explanation, no reasoning, ... just a comment as if to say that, 'this is a foregone conclusion, so I can disregard it and everyone should accept the rest of my story'. It's meaningless, and a bit disrespectful.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Faith, posted 09-24-2015 11:05 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Faith, posted 09-24-2015 9:17 PM edge has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024