|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Defence of Intelligent Design | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
bran_sept88,
In a study of 300 cladograms 75 % of which were found to be stratigraphically congruent. Ergo 75% of the fossils were intermediate. The study has since been extended to over 1000 cladograms. Put simply, the evolutionary assumption behind cladistics is tested to an unbelievably high degree. This also destroys any notion of the flood, & Whatevers beloved liquefaction, but since he doesn't understand the logical corollaries of his own arguments I seriously doubt if he'll be able to assimilate this. http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/publs/Benton/1999SystBiol.pdf "Stratigraphic Consistency Index The SCI metric may also be summarized either as a mean value for each taxonomic group or as a proportion of cladograms that score SCI values of 0.500 or more, an indication that half, or more, of the branches are consistent with stratigraphic evidence. By both measures, fishes and echinoderms score better than tetrapods. Mean SCI values are: echinoderms (0.773), fishes (0.757), and tetrapods (0.701). Proportions of cladograms with SCI values $0.500 are tetrapods (100%), echinoderms (94%), and fishes (93%). For both measures, values for all three groups are indistinguishable according to binomial error bars (Fig. 3). Within the sample of echinoderm cladograms, nonechinoids show somewhat better results than echinoids but not significantly so (Fig. 3). The mean SCI value for echinoids is 0.724, and for nonechinoids 0.849; moreover, 90%of echinoid cladograms have SCI values $ 0.500,compared with 100% for nonechinoids. SCI values for fish groups are variable but not significantly different (Fig. 3). For mean SCI values, the order is as follows: sarcopterygians (0.904), teleosts (0.744), placoderms(0.741), agnathans (0.733), and actinopterygians (0.722). In all cases, all sampled cladograms show SCI values > 0.500. The rankings of tetrapod groups by both aspects of the SCI metric are comparable. Mean SCI values give this sequence: mammals (0.837), mammallike reptiles (0.729), lepidosauromorphs (0.714), dinosaurs (0.698), archosauromorphs (0.660), and turtles (0.586). The low value for turtles is significantly lower than the high values for synapsids, mammals, and mammallike reptiles. Proportions of cladograms with SCI values $ 0.500 give this sequence: mammals (100%), mammallike reptiles (100%), lepidosauromorphs (100%), turtles (100%), dinosaurs (86%), and archosauromorphs (78%)." Mark
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Darwin's Terrier Inactive Member |
Yes I have heard about the domestic and wild horses but they were still horses. Interesting. What kind are zebras, quaggas, asses and, say, Pliohippus? DT
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Whatever,
mark24, I don't know enough about your imaginary sediment layers to argue whats in each one, too me, the liquefication layerings of the flood sediments and the fossils stratification within said sediments explain the fossil layerings, perhaps sometime I'll look at this all closer, to understand exactly what your saying, we all know some of the creatures of the flood went extinct, even today we have species that are now facing extinction, and no new kinds of creatures being formed, etc... Good grief!!! Look, it is all VERY simple. You are claiming that the Cambrian explosion is an event. That means it can't have been fucked about by liquefaction or hydrodyamic sorting, right? That means it was, whether you like it or not, laid down as conventional geology says it was. That means liquefaction & the flood DID NOT AFFECT THE BASE OF THE CAMBRIAN & LOWER. DO YOU UNDERSTAND? Mark
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
mark24, If fossils decompose, then the only evidence of the Genesis event would be only the creatures alive at the time of the biblical flood, and liquification supports there was no cambrian explosion fossil record, the creatures of the Cambrian event would of died, decomposed leaving little evidence of their passing, the fossil record is basically the creatures alive at the time of the flood, fossils that were buried, frozen, it doesn't happen naturally(fossils decomposes), it takes a burial, and the fossil record shows a world sediment deposition, etc...
[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-26-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Whatever,
mark24, If fossils decompose, But they don't. They are a part of the rock.
....then the only evidence of the Genesis event would be only the creatures alive at the time of the biblical flood, and liquification supports there was no cambrian explosion fossil record, But hypocritically say:
The very name Cambrian explosion suggests it all came on suddenly, which brings the question why is it not still exploding, the answer is obvious, it was created by Intelligent Design, that was the Cambrian explosion, the creationists would direct you to Genesis chapter 1, etc... Clearly you meant that the Cambrian explosion was an event recorded in the fossil record. You now appear to be backtracking as hard as you can claiming that liquefaction actually eliminated any such artifact! When you meant that ID was responsible for the Ce you must've meant the Cambrian explosion didn't exist at all! Please can you reconcile your two contradictory statements, above. Was the Ce a genesis event recorded, or not. You can't have it both ways, mate. Good luck. Mark "Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall [This message has been edited by mark24, 01-26-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3706 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: |
You're still banging your big drum about Walt's theory, even though he has to contradict himself to make his theory work. Can you really see no problem with this? Are you really happy to take the word of someone who either thinks granite isn't rock or has the face to claim that conventional theory of mountain formation won't work because rocks don't bend AND THEN PROPOSES AN ALTERNATIVE THEORY THAT REQUIRES THESE NON-BENDY ROCKS TO BEND? Can you really not see a problem here?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Not Exactly, chromosome count is the major factor That's a factor in reproductive isolation, but nobody uses it for species classification. You may be interested to know that humans have a chromosome which is obviously a fusion of two chromosomes possessed by apes. How would you explain this if not by common descent? Apparently there are natural processes that can change chromosome count in animals. (It's certainly well-established in plants, as you may know.) You can read about it at:
Human / Ape chromosome differences
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
mark24, I no longer believe the fossil record gives an accurate record of the Cambrian explosion, as the fossil record can only be a the fossils that were alive at the time of the biblical flood, given that fossils decompose in the natural, it does gives a record of the creatures alive 4,350 years ago, when this flood poured out the sediments upon the earth, with the flood waters.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5820 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Oooooookay. Mark let me give this one a try...
quote: Watch your terminology!!!! Fossils neither live, nor do they decompose. Living things die. Some die in an environment where they do not decay completely. Depending on the environment, parts may be preserved pretty much as they were in death (extremely rare and usually only for a certain period of time), and others have their chemicals replaced by minerals as the sediments they are within become stone. That latter process is what is commonly called fossilization. So a dead thing is only a fossil if you manage to find it because it has not "decomposed".
quote: By saying this, you must then realize the problems Mark24 has set out for you. There are only a set group of creatures found within the Cambrian deposits. This makes little sense if as you yourself say that it is a record of creatures alive back then. Where'd all the other creatures go? holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
holmes, I believe all sediments layers are primarily the fossil sediment of the biblical flood, not just limited to the cambrian, likely their is some fossils that could be interpreted to of been formed pre-flood, like coral reefs, buried under the sediments, etc...
P.S. I never got into all the different names given, as too me, they are all just part of the same deposition, I'm just give mark 24 the credit for showing me the fossils are not evidence for the cambrian explosion, so keep looking for your fossils, don't think their out there, but we all enjoy new discoveries, etc...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I believe all sediments layers are primarily the fossil sediment of the biblical flood But they can't be if some of the layers pre-date the flood, as you've argued in other threads. So which is it? You can't have it both ways.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
:æ:  Suspended Member (Idle past 7185 days) Posts: 423 Joined: |
whatever writes:
So the fossil record must indicate then, that elephants outran velociraptors in the race for higher ground as the flood waters rose? Not just some elephants, mind you. ALL of them. Is it your contention that this is what happened? How do you explain it?
it does gives a record of the creatures alive 4,350 years ago, when this flood poured out the sediments upon the earth, with the flood waters.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
The concept of "intelligent design" does show up occasionly. Also the "great flood" and other topics. Time to close this one down, as a terminal mess? I take a look tommorrow morning.
BTW, Whatever is currently under suspension. Adminnemooseus Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to Change in Moderation? or too fast closure of threads
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Whatever,
mark24, I no longer believe the fossil record gives an accurate record of the Cambrian explosion, You mean your argument got whipped, six of the best trousers down, don't you? You can't help yourselves, can you? You are such a compartmentalised thinkers that you never cross-check one of your held beliefs against another for consistency. This is ALL creationism is, tiny factoids ripped from their context at the expense of all directly contradictory data. It was crashingly obvious to anyone who actually was a critical thinker that you were being a hypocritical creationist grasping at straws for something that would support your view. Typical. Mark "Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5033 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Then we simply neeD to discuss this on an observation and formulation basis first and foremost. We can do plenty of normative science and even Dennet's idea that Edelman doesnt know what a computer is no matter how the explanation is presented. Information architeture need not have loops and recursions as the same (thing.). You can always invert a question in the last word. You can not always invert the physical arrangement of (a)"zero" or any other sign for that matter. "incompleteness" ...well let me thiink. Just that.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024