|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
edge writes:
You don't fool me - I know that, as a result of my teaching on this site, you are now seriously questioning your Darwinist beliefs and are thinking of converting to some form of creationism. Learn what? Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8654 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
Sorry, but you haven’t told me anything useful in terms of a breeding program. Is that what you're looking for? A fuckin breeding program! Disingenuous fool. Hey, but ok, I'll have a few minutes of fun. To evolve amniotes to synapsids/sauropsids nature took millions of colonies of different species of amniotes, put them in a nice wet warm place and let chemistry work its majik. A few million years later the amniotes were still there but had evolved two separate forms. How's that for a breeding program. Like teenagers you leave them alone and they fuck on their own. Don't need no stinkin' program.
Dog breeders have experimented with inbreeding simply to see what will happen and what weird mutations they can come up with. So what? That doesn't mean what you think it means. We are quite familiar with this inbreeding disaster and how/why it forms. And you don't know dog breeders.
This fact contradicts your Darwinist fantasy that a dog can eventually be bred into a non-dog. No, fool, it does not. Any such fantasy exists only in your tiny little head. And of all my fantasies I don't recall Darwin being in any of them, though I've had some wide-ranging fantasies so I can't say for sure.
I understand that an atheist has no choice but to believe that evolution is responsible for the fossil record, despite the reality-denying absurdity of that position. A streetcar named Desire jumps both ways. Sixty-four is interdependent on the relatedness of motivation, subcultures, and management. Whiskey on the table is paved with good intentions. You make as much sense as the Do Nothing Button. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8654 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 6.8
|
1. No, as I've pointed out many times, I'm not a YEC. You're not just a YEC you're a yokel of a YEC.Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member (Idle past 325 days) Posts: 1398 From: Birmingham, England Joined:
|
Interesting - an assumption that Dr Jones is a man.
Come on now Dredge - women can be doctors you know.Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member (Idle past 227 days) Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Dredge writes: If a dog could eventually be bred into a non-dog it would completely falsify evolutionary theory as that is the opposite of what evolutionary theory predicts.
This fact contradicts your Darwinist fantasy that a dog can eventually be bred into a non-dog
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9489 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 6.2 |
Trolling and preaching that is all a creationist ever does.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1958 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
No, Dredge accepts the same fossil record as you do.
Just in case you were wondering about that whooshing sound, it was my point going over your head.
Here’s the problem for Darwinists: Fossils tells us nothing about the mechanism of macroevolution, ...
Yes, we understood you the first time. You didn't read my post, did you?
... and it cannot be demonstrated that microevolution leads to macroevolution (on the contrary, thousands of years of animal and plant breeding demonstrates that there are genetic limits to how far organisms can “evolve”) . So all you have left to “explain” the fossil record is blind faith (born of atheism) in Darwinian evolution. Unfortunately blind faith is not science.
What is really unfortunate is that you are unable to comprehend the whole point of my post.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9489 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 6.2 |
women can be doctors you know.
As my wife and niece both prove every day. My wife is an M.D., Family Medicine and my niece is a PhD, Public Health.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member (Idle past 325 days) Posts: 1398 From: Birmingham, England Joined: |
Yep - we do spend a lot of time raking over the world's troubles on these pages, but it's good to remember we've come a long way, (even if there is still a long way to go).
Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10297 Joined: Member Rating: 7.2
|
Dredge writes: Btw, you haven’t answered my question: If the THEORY of evolution is “true”, why don’t you call it the FACT of evolution? You are demonstrating that you don't understand what theories or facts are.
quote: Sorry, but you haven’t told me anything useful in terms of a breeding program. If you have an amniote, for example, how do you breed it to evolve into a synapsid? Synapsids are amniotes.
Dog breeders have experimented with inbreeding simply to see what will happen and what weird mutations they can come up with. In other words, they have used every trick in the book to change the morphology of dogs - and what they have found is, the further genetics are pushed the more harmful mutations arise, thus limiting how far breeding can go. This fact contradicts your Darwinist fantasy that a dog can eventually be bred into a non-dog. The one trick they haven't tried is to allow dogs to breed in large populations over millions of years to get rid of the harmful mutations and accumulate much more genetic variation. Humans and chimps differ by 2% at the genetic level. Can you show me two dog breeds that differ by 2% at the genetic level?
You live in a dream world. Try and bred a dog into a non-dog and see what happens - you will end in the same genetic “dead-end” that thousands of years of dog breeding has - ie, a drastically less-diverse population riddled with harmful mutations. All you will end up “evolving” is sick, weak, unfit dogs! All descendants of dogs will be dogs. What can change is the variety and number of dog species. If you don't understand this very simple concept, then you can't critique evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9489 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 6.2
|
If the THEORY of evolution is “true”, why don’t you call it the FACT of evolution?
As I said before science does not work in truths. The Theory of Evolution is the best explanation for the data we currently have. It could change if there were data that ran counter to it. You obviously have no idea how science works. You know about gravity I assume. There is no FACT of gravity. Since there is not I assume you don't believe in gravity. Scientific theories are not educated guesses. You are using the fallacy of equivocation.Equivocation - RationalWiki Here is a quick primer on Theories and Laws. You might want to review to keep from looking so ridiculous in the future. Hypothesis, theory, law - Google Docs
quote: One should learn a subject before trying to expound upon it.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
AZPaul3 writes: Is that what you're looking for? A fuckin breeding program! Yes - I asked you for a breeding program that will produce macroevolution. Believe it or not, macroevolution sort of needs organisms to breed in order for it to happen.
To evolve amniotes to synapsids/sauropsids nature took millions of colonies of different species of amniotes, put them in a nice wet warm place and let chemistry work its majik. A few million years later the amniotes were still there but had evolved two separate forms. How's that for a breeding program
Sorry, but your breeding program tells me nothing about how to breed a synapsid from an amniote.If someone asked you how to breed a sausage dog from a wolf, for example, and you said "put them in a nice (warm) place and let chemistry work its majik", they would rightly conclude that you know ZILCH about dog breeding. So - as I suspected - you actually have no idea how you would go about producing a synapsid from a amniote. So much for you claimed knowledge of macroevolution - you've just proven you have none! It seems that your so-called knowledge turns out to be nothing but blind faith - "Gee, I dunno ... evolution done it!"
We are quite familiar with this inbreeding disaster and how/why it forms. .... and why genetic disasters place a limit on how far the dog genome can be "stretched". Despite the obvious genetic "dead ends" encountered by dog breeders, you still believe the deluded fantasy that dogs could eventually be breed into non-dogs. I could ask you how you would go about breeding a non-dog from a dog, but you'd be as clueless about that as you are about breeding a synapsid from an amnoite.
Disingenuous fool.
Oh look, a petulant insult - the last resort of the clueless. Classy stuff.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes: . The matching phylogenies at the morphological and genetic level tell us the how: evolutionary mechanisms. Phylogenies are the fingerprint of random mutations, selection, drift, speciation, and vertical inheritance Ah, so if you know how macroevolution occurs, you shouldn't have any trouble telling me how you would go about breeding a bird from a reptile, for example ... or a non-fruit fly from a fruit fly. What about a double-cell organism from a single-cell organism? Go ahead, I'm all ears ...
that fingerprint is all over the distribution of characteristics in living and fossil species as well as the genomes of living species. You stated in message 1162 that "genetic engineering can produce any pattern of similarities and differences" - I presume this includes the same pattern that evolution produces. So it's possible that, what looks to you like the "fingerprint" of evolution in the fossil record, could actually be the fingerprint of genetic engineering.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
qs=edgeNo that doesn't answer my question. I asked why you defend a theory as the best scientific explanation when you don't believe it. That does not lend a whole lot of credence. In fact, it makes your argument a strawman.
I would just as soon argue that the theory of evolution is the best scientific theory because I DO believe that the evidence supports it. Arguably, that makes my theory more valid than yours [/qs] Okay, let's simplify things - imagine that I decided to ditch my theory of aliens and like you, accepted Darwinism as the best scientific explanation for the fossil record. Although I accept Darwinism as the best scientific theory, I still wouldn't believe it, becauseA. Accepting a scientific explanation as the best available at the time is not contingent on believing that explanation is the truth. For staters, I would be aware that the "best scientific explanation" today may not be the "best scientific explanation" tomorrow. B. I believe that a certain non-scientific explanation for the fossil record is a better explanation than the scientific one C. I believe the non-scientific explanation in B is the truth. And I haven't even got into the lack of evidence for such alien intervention
With respect to evidence of aliens: "Lucy" - for example - might be the remains of one of the very aliens I'm talking about.
So this renders neither of your two theories as scientific and shows that you are just trolling this board ... You are playing games.
If you lack the intelligence and imagination and scientific aptitude and humility to accept my teachings, whose fault is that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
Tanypteryx writes: Why do you think macroevolution is related to breeding? Er ... because if animals don't breed, there will be no evolution at all, let alone macroevolution.
You don't seem to know anything about macroevolution. NO ONE knows anything about macroevolution - including you. You haven't got a bloody clue how you would go about breeding a winged-insect from a non-winged-insect, for example ... you wouldn't even know where to start! Tanypteryx: "We already know how macroevolution occurs". HA HA HA! What a joke!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024