|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
ksc Guest |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Iridium Nightmare and Living Fossils | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1907 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Well, that is head and shoulders above the antics at every creationist-run forum that I have visited, where dissent is often responded to by deletion, editing, and banning. Eh, karl?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fedmahn Kassad Inactive Member |
I read through some of your links. That's Karl, no doubt about it. Posting the same arguments over and over, ignoring all rebuttals, and then complaining that nobody can answer his points. On the other hand, when you ask him a question, he gives some vague and implausible response, and after that insists that he already answered that and refuses to provide additional details.
It would be sort of funny, if I didn't know he was dead serious. But as I said, he has been around these debates a long time, and has a long history of this. Don't expect him to go away anytime soon. Just be sure you understand his tactics and make sure you understand his game. He sees himself as a Crusader for Christ, and it is his duty to demolish the claims of all the "atheistic evos". Honest debate is apparently not a prerequisite. FK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
The forum guidelines request that members exhibit respect for others, refrain from personalizing the debate, and stay focused on the issues. I think we've said enough about Karl for now, especially given that he can't respond until tomorrow afternoon.
I followed the links people posted to information about Karl's participation at other boards, and there is no doubt in my mind that he's a troll. That's why I moved so quickly to give him a 24-hour suspension of posting privileges. But his participation here has been very short and his offenses thus far very meager, and I'm convinced he is unable to perceive the trollish side of his behavior. He may be a troll, but I believe he is an honest troll. I'm not so naive as to believe it likely that Karl will comport himself differently here, but I strongly believe he should be given every opportunity to do so. It is therefore my fervent wish and hope that Karl will be accorded every respect upon his return. I'm now aware of his history, I truly appreciate being informed about him, but I don't think we need any further posts about Karl's activities elsewhere, or any further criticisms of his behavior here. When Karl returns please welcome him cordially, leaving enforcement of the forum guidelines to the moderator. Thank you all! --PercyEvC Forum Administrator |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5903 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Okay, ksc. Last chance. You claim to have answered everyone’s points. Guess we should take a moment to look over what’s really happened
Quoted sections (Quetzal) are from post #10 on this thread, quoted sections from ksc are from his alleged response on message #11, with current additions.
quote: What on earth are "evo facts"? Is this a textbook, article, journal, website, what? "No status quo" is a bald assertion on your part with absolutely no evidence. You call this responding? You have not shown that natural selection cannot maintain equilibrium. The fact is that status quo is one of the three possible outcomes to natural selection:
I hope you note from this graphic that phenotypical stability is expected as one of the normal outcomes of natural selection. Now it is incumbent upon YOU to refute this - since it directly challenges your opening assertion that "living fossils must evolve". Provide references.
quote: On the contrary, you have been provided the precise mechanisms how such stasis is maintained over quite a long period of time. Perhaps you’d care to show why these mechanisms were incapable of maintaining species relatively unchanged over evolutionary time scales? Your response is another hand-wave. Perhaps you don’t know enough about evolutionary theory and its mechanisms to respond (in which case your OP becomes pretty obviously erroneous)?
quote: References provided in message # 20 in this thread. Would you care to provide specific evidence that shows a world-wide flood actually occurred? Also, evidence that the fossil record — which extends backwards in time for ~3.5 billion years — indicates that all these organisms were contemporaneous? Of course, you’ll be able to cite specific references?
quote: Restating your assertion without addressing my points does not constitute a rebuttal. Care to respond concerning your obvious error on genetic drift? Not to mention the rest of the errors I pointed out.
quote: Another restatement of your original bald assertion. Again, you have failed to address the points refuting your post. Try again. I would say that Percy is absolutely correct. You have neither debated in good faith NOR provided any evidence or argument or answer to anything I — or anyone else - wrote. My suggestion would be to substantively address what has been presented refuting your spurious arguments, or go play with yourself somewhere else.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RedVento Inactive Member |
quote: I think this analogy will validate the answers given. When you cross a street you can get hit by a bus. If you cross a street 100 million times your chances of getting hit by said bus increase, but not once does the chances of getting hit by a bus increase to 100%. So while there is a chance that the "living fossils" could have mutated, never is there an instance that they HAVE to mutate. I believe this is all covered by basic probability. If I am wrong please tell me why and how, and not with some reply talking about how long they haven't changed.. I've read that same response like 8 times in this thread already.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
scarletohairy Inactive Member |
quote: 'They' who? Evolutionary biologists do not say that it was wolf to whale. Darwin speculated on bear to whale, but was clear that it was speculation. The current science? It suggests a common ancestor to the whale and the ... hippopotamus (http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20020506/whale.html). But, then, I wouldn't expect a Creo to get it right. And no, there is nothing in evolution that states that a particular species MUST evolve -- although its members must adapt to conditions, and mutations may produce a new evolutionary route. And has been noted, there is nothing to keep a parent species and an offshoot from both continuing to exist, perhaps in the same habitat if the they exploit different resources. But old Karl, here -- he just keeps asserting that evolution posits an imperative to evolve. Neither evidence, nor theory, nor logic mean anything, apparently.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
scarletohairy Inactive Member |
quote: You gotta love these Creos! So much for natural selection acting on mutations at whatever rates. So much for genetic drift's application being to: (1) small populations, or (2) genetic changes that are neutral with regard to phenotype change. So much for diversity of environments, even in times of world-wide environmental stress. So much for extremely long periods of statis. So much for major changes in most of life, when a fairly-stable few can be picked on.....So much for Creationism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
ksc's posting privileges have been restored.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ksc Guest |
Message deleted by ksc
[This message has been edited by ksc, 05-12-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ksc Guest |
Message deleted by ksc
[This message has been edited by ksc, 05-12-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ksc Guest |
Message deleted by ksc
[This message has been edited by ksc, 05-12-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5711 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: Actually, you presented nothing at all. Your original assertion was that the coelacanth SHOULD evolve. Several people have pointed out to you that it has, indeed evolved. Now you are claiming that it has not evolved enough or not at all. Do you just ignore everyone else's posts? Basicaly what you are doing is called moving the goalposts and it is a tactic all creationists learn early. Once again KC, your arguments are bankrupt. Cheers Joe Meert PS: As always, I expect you to refer to me as "Dr. Meert" or "Sir" [This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 05-10-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
ksc,
You still haven't told me WHY long time frames equate to morpological change. I refer you back to message 46. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5903 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
This discussion is getting surreal.
ksc: Why are you continuing to state that so-called living fossils are somehow a refutation of biology? Even the references you provided actually speak AGAINST this theory (with the exception of Plaisted, who I'll get to in a moment). You literally don't have any idea what you're cutting-and-pasting, do you? Let's take a look: 1. You reject Theobald's well-referenced article, claiming he provides no evidence. Yet he provides copious examples of every assertion he makes throughout that essay. One of the key points you missed out on is from the last line of the paragraph you quoted: "In fact, paleontological studies indicate the average longevity of 21 living families of vertebrates is approximately 70 million years. (emphasis added)" The point here is that higher taxonomic rankings - in this case families - are even MORE stable over time than individual species. Mayr makes a similar point about mass extinctions: higher taxonomic classifications are conserved (example: whereas some 75-80% of all extant species went extinct at the end of the Cretaceous, only 16% of all extant families went extinct. This is purely an artifact of the system of classification we use. Mayr 2001, "What Evolution Is", pg 202.) Once again, we have actual evolutionary biologists predicting that stasis IS OBSERVED - and why. It isn't some strange new phenomenon that somehow falsifies evolution. 2. Your reference from the creationist Plaisted is interesting. No surprise that he uses stasis as somehow refuting evolution. Is this where you got your idea in the first place? Talk about not providing any evidence whatsoever. Plaisted's entire essay is utterly devoid of evidence - and constitutes at best philosophical musings. Plaisted in general probably isn't all that reliable - and not because he's a creationist. He has published numerous essays which have been shown to be completely erroneous (see, for example, his mistakes on retroposons, refuted by Plagarized Errors and Molecular Genetics. 3. The Mayr and Gliedman quotes merely point out that evolutionary stasis is not completely understood. No kidding. Not much support for your claim that organisms MUST evolve. BTW: that website was hysterical. Thanks for the link. 4. Korthoff quoting Matt Ridley: "Natural selection is described as a theory of evolution, and indeed it is one, but it is a theory of non-evolution too." Ooops, you probably shouldn't have referenced this one. Ridley is quite clearly stating that natural selection ALSO explains persistence of "living fossils", conservation of genetic material, etc. Sort of provides additional refutation to your claim that organisms MUST evolve, doesn't it... 5. Your link referencing Eldredge didn't work, so I can't speak to the context or the original sources. Although to me the bit on Eldredge sounds like something from one of his pro-PE anti-darwinian- strict-adaptationist essays. Suggest fixing the link so we can see what was actually written, or at least the references the author of your cut-and-paste actually used. On to dueling graphics: quote: So? Actually, your graphic ONLY showed the action of normalizing or stabilizing selection. You'll note that the variation is in fact around the mean. Like I said.
quote: Right, stabilizing selection works to eliminate the extremes in variation. Meaning that there would be a tendancy in this type of NS to maintain the relative status quo - in the case of coelocanths, this means that they might have gotten bigger, as was pointed out, but that the population mean is generally stable. Oops, you just refuted your own assertion. Timescales DON'T matter!!!! Try again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ksc Guest |
Message deleted by ksc
[This message has been edited by ksc, 05-12-2002]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024