|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,385 Year: 3,642/9,624 Month: 513/974 Week: 126/276 Day: 23/31 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 369 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What would a transitional fossil look like? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
Of course you have trouble with facts that contradict your fantasies.
Let me put them more simply. First, trilobites 1) trilobites vary considerably. 2) species in the wild do not vary to anything like the same extent. 3) therefore trilobites are obviously not a single species Second your “kind” criterion: 1) you do not apply it to any other “kind” 2) in recent discussion you were quite happy to accept minor differences as distinguishing “Kinds” e.g. cats having sharper claws than dogs - while rejecting bigger differences between trilobites. 3) the double standard is so glaringly obvious that you can’t expect anyone to believe you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: That is a long, long way from the truth. Your recent argument about trilobites, for instance, is simply based on taking the differences between trilobites as insignificant - no matter how big they are - and the differences between dogs and cats as being significant no matter how small they are. That is not a good argument - it’s just an expression of extreme bias.
quote: And we know that you are wrong because antibiotic resistance can appear in clonal populations of bacteria.
quote: So you’ve asked for huge amounts of detail from non-experts. And is a chimpanzee hand really that different from a human hand ? By the standards you use for trilobites isn’t it the same ? So let us be fair. You explain how we can get the massive amounts of variation we can see in trilobites - and if we can explain how to get from a chimpanzee hand to a human hand to the same level of detail you will accept that. Good enough ? Or will you demand more from us than you can give ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: What false statements ?
quote: But I did not just flatly contradict your statement, did I ? I pointed out serious problems in your arguments. I could point out more - like your dismissal of the order in the fossil record by flatly asserting that the Flood has to account for it - no matter that the idea makes no sense. But thanks for showing - yet again - how dismiss serious points against your arguments.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: But essentially your point is that you get to dictate what definitions are permitted. Obviously that is an unreasonable demand and you should give in.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: I note that you do not quote what RAZD actually said:
Then dogs and cats are a "Kind or species (faith usage)" and chimps and humans a "Kind or species (faith usage)" ... where "species (faith usage)" means some original fantasy "species genome" and NOT species as used in biology, science, reality.
And that seems to be true. We have seen no valid criteria for identifying species which allows us to say that trilobites are a species - and still keep cats, dogs, chimps and human beings as separate species. Edited by PaulK, : Correct qs tag
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: You haven’t got a definition of species that supports your claims.
quote: Then maybe you should use your intellect from something better than creating stupidities you want to post here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: Sure you did. Eg:
As I said, take my definition or shut up.
You were called superstitious, you denied it based on your choice of definition, and when an alternative definition was pointed out you tried to shut it down. But you don’t get to choose the definition someone else uses - even though you often try. That is even worse than making up your own definitions (or worse, pretending to have done so, as in the recent case of “species”).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Really ? What actual evidence do you have ?
quote: But it doesn’t define any other species, Why just trilobites ?
quote: Aside from all the many differences you are ignoring, the variations in spines alone would indicate that trilobites had multiple species by normal standards. How do you know that the variations all come from a “single genome”, whatever you mean by that?
quote: i.e. you don’t use the “same basic body plan” criterion in that case.
quote: Mutations include the gain or loss of genes, and include changes to regulatory sequences. Regulatory sequences control when genes are switched on and off. Neoteny is an example, and one relevant to the evolution of humans. And let us note that nobody is suggesting that modern chimpanzees - either species - has evolved into anything else.
quote: If you are talking about the hypothetical future evolution of chimpanzees then obviously any stages will be equally hypothetical. If you are talking about the past evolution of humans, there are quite a number of species at least related to that line, including the australopithecines and the other species assigned to genus homo.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: Really ? What is a “normal allele”? And are you talking about individual genomes or something more complicated?
quote: If you mean that they mess up one of your favourite arguments you are exactly right.
quote: Why not ? And how can you tell ? And why isn’t a new allele something new ? What about a new gene ? Mutation can produce those, too.
quote: If you mean “basic body plan” that doesn’t have to change at all to get a new species. Closely related species don’t vary an awful lot.
quote: Neither of those are real problems at the level you are discussing. It’s only when you get into the details that they matter.
quote: That’s your opinion. And your opinions are very often wrong. So it isn’t surprising that this one is, too.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024