Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,570 Year: 4,827/9,624 Month: 175/427 Week: 88/85 Day: 5/20 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   One Question for Evo-Bashers
John
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 102 (27482)
12-20-2002 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by DanskerMan
12-20-2002 10:17 AM


quote:
Originally posted by sonnikke:
Refresh my memory, there are about 250,000,000 catalogued fossils correct? And, arguably a handful of "transitionals".
Well, you are almost there. 250,000,000 catalogued fossils (I'm accept your number, as it doesn't matter) and ALL OF THEM TRANSITIONAL.
quote:
I accept the holy bible.
Then retract your argument. Archealogical data supports dozens of creation accounts. If you are going to claim that data as support for the truth of your own myth, you must accept it for other myths as well. Unless, of course, you are willing to let the Bible be on par, but not above, with these other myths.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by DanskerMan, posted 12-20-2002 10:17 AM DanskerMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by DanskerMan, posted 12-20-2002 11:42 AM John has replied
 Message 48 by Coragyps, posted 12-20-2002 12:04 PM John has not replied

  
DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 102 (27485)
12-20-2002 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by John
12-20-2002 11:25 AM


quote:
Originally posted by John:

Well, you are almost there. 250,000,000 catalogued fossils (I'm accept your number, as it doesn't matter) and ALL OF THEM TRANSITIONAL.

I don't even know how to respond to such an outrageous assertion.... So if I were to visit ALL the museums in the world, according to you John ALL the fossils on display will be part one species and part another.
There won't be fish or frogs etc, but rather fish w/ legs, frogs w/ ?? who knows....
To be honest, unless your definition of transitional is COMPLETELY different, what you said is more preposterous than anything I've yet heard.
If I were an evolutionist and you were a creationist, I'm pretty sure the mockery would have been immense.
"A theory that explains everything explains nothing"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by John, posted 12-20-2002 11:25 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by John, posted 12-20-2002 12:33 PM DanskerMan has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 811 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 48 of 102 (27487)
12-20-2002 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by John
12-20-2002 11:25 AM


Well, John, maybe not all of them were transitional. Some surely were fossilized without leaving offspring.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by John, posted 12-20-2002 11:25 AM John has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 102 (27490)
12-20-2002 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by DanskerMan
12-20-2002 11:42 AM


quote:
Originally posted by sonnikke:
So if I were to visit ALL the museums in the world, according to you John ALL the fossils on display will be part one species and part another.
Species is a concept that we have made up. It doesn't exist the way you think it does. Imagine a color spectum like artists use. At one end is black and the other is white and between the two all the various colors grade from one to the other. Pick any point on that line and it is identifiably different from any other point. Red vs. green, for example. Blue vs. yellow. But if you start at one point you can travel the whole line and encounter no sharp transitions between colors. All of the colors are transitional between the one before and the one after it. This is what you have in the fossil record. All of the fossils are transitional between the one before and the one after it. But we don't have the entire spectrum, so there appears to be hard breaks, just like when you select two colors from some difference away, like blue and yellow. Species is a name we give to 'colors' that are within a tolerable distance from one another, and biologists can't agree on exactly how to make the distinction. The concept of species is artificial in this way.
quote:
There won't be fish or frogs etc, but rather fish w/ legs, frogs w/ ?? who knows....
Nope. Frogs are transitional between what came before them and what will come after. Each GENERATION is transitional between the previous generation and the next generation. There are small changes that are not dtectable until you look at hundreds or thousands of genrations.
quote:
To be honest, unless your definition of transitional is COMPLETELY different, what you said is more preposterous than anything I've yet heard.
It is your understanding of evolution that is preposterous.
quote:
If I were an evolutionist and you were a creationist, I'm pretty sure the mockery would have been immense.
Actually..... not. Nothing I have said isn't basic evolutionary biology. The analogy needs to be qualified to include PE and branching, but that's about it.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by DanskerMan, posted 12-20-2002 11:42 AM DanskerMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by DanskerMan, posted 12-20-2002 12:51 PM John has replied

  
DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 102 (27492)
12-20-2002 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by John
12-20-2002 12:33 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John:

Species is a concept that we have made up. It doesn't exist the way you think it does. Imagine a color spectum like artists use. At one end is black and the other is white and between the two all the various colors grade from one to the other. Pick any point on that line and it is identifiably different from any other point. Red vs. green, for example. Blue vs. yellow. But if you start at one point you can travel the whole line and encounter no sharp transitions between colors. All of the colors are transitional between the one before and the one after it. This is what you have in the fossil record. All of the fossils are transitional between the one before and the one after it. But we don't have the entire spectrum, so there appears to be hard breaks, just like when you select two colors from some difference away, like blue and yellow. Species is a name we give to 'colors' that are within a tolerable distance from one another, and biologists can't agree on exactly how to make the distinction. The concept of species is artificial in this way.
Nope. Frogs are transitional between what came before them and what will come after. Each GENERATION is transitional between the previous generation and the next generation. There are small changes that are not dtectable until you look at hundreds or thousands of genrations.
It is your understanding of evolution that is preposterous.
Actually..... not. Nothing I have said isn't basic evolutionary biology. The analogy needs to be qualified to include PE and branching, but that's about it.

That's slick but totally absurd. By admission that the changes are so minute as to be indistinguishable, and hence the different species don't show the intermediary characteristics, it seems you have destroyed any chance for a species actually evolving to another species. Also, theories like punctuated equilibrium concocted by seemingly intelligent scientists, are rendered invalid and almost certainly comedic.
As stated previously, and by comparison, if your colour analogy should be accepted, any design analogy should be likewise.
Regards,
S

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by John, posted 12-20-2002 12:33 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by John, posted 12-20-2002 4:26 PM DanskerMan has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 102 (27511)
12-20-2002 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by DanskerMan
12-20-2002 12:51 PM


quote:
Originally posted by sonnikke:
That's slick but totally absurd.
Slick and totally accurate ( well, totally, but close enough )
quote:
By admission that the changes are so minute as to be indistinguishable
Where did I say indistinguishable? I said you'd find no hard break, not that you'd find no differences. As you walk down the color line you move from one shade to the next. The two shades are different but very similar. Compare two adjacent ones and the difference is hardly noticable, but that difference gets larger as you compare shades from greater distances apart. Think in terms of people. Pull any ten people off the street and you get variations, but not the variation you get when you compare a human with a chimp or a gorilla because the humans are all huddled very close to the same spot on the color line while the chimp is further away. I think you may be thinking of a species as ONE shade on the line. It isn't. A species is several shades in very close proximity. This is exactly what happens in evolution and exactly what shows up in the fossil record.
quote:
and hence the different species don't show the intermediary characteristics
All characteristics are intermediate.
Here is an experiment. If you run Windows, open MsPaint. On the top toolbar click 'colors' then choose 'edit colors.' Now click 'define custom colors' I want you to show me the hard breaks between those colors. Play with the variables. Change the 'hue' value from 120 to 121. Can you tell the difference? But is there a difference nonetheless? Change it to 122. 123. 124. Play with the red, blue and green values as well. Where is that hard break? Any color you pick is an intermediate.
quote:
it seems you have destroyed any chance for a species actually evolving to another species.
Wrong. I hope what I have said above has helped. You seem to be thinking of a species as one color. It is a range of colors. Species are an average, not a THING. The animals within a species are not all clones of each other.
quote:
Also, theories like punctuated equilibrium concocted by seemingly intelligent scientists, are rendered invalid and almost certainly comedic.
PE is the same thing but faster. Look at the MsPaint window. Notice that some of the transitions are more rapid than others?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
[This message has been edited by John, 12-20-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by DanskerMan, posted 12-20-2002 12:51 PM DanskerMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by DanskerMan, posted 12-20-2002 5:10 PM John has replied
 Message 65 by logicalunatic, posted 12-21-2002 1:35 AM John has not replied

  
DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 102 (27519)
12-20-2002 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by John
12-20-2002 4:26 PM


John, I get the colour analogy, but it doesn't cut it. If it were true, we should find 1000's of fossils of reptiles gradually evolving to birds, at the different stages from reptile to fully bird. Instead we find reptile, and we find bird, no in betweens. The fossil record would be one giant "colour spectrum" with gradual in between stages documented, NOT 250,000,000 distinct "colours".
Regards,
S

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by John, posted 12-20-2002 4:26 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by logicalunatic, posted 12-21-2002 1:43 AM DanskerMan has not replied
 Message 68 by John, posted 12-21-2002 10:18 AM DanskerMan has replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7742 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 53 of 102 (27520)
12-20-2002 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by derwood
12-20-2002 12:21 AM


Dear Dr Page,
Dr PAge: As you have contributed to the overthrow of evolutionism,
PB: Thanks for the recognistion.
Dr Page: ..I was perplexed, as you can imagine, when I did a literature search for your name and 'evolutionism' and 'overthrow' and I got zero returns..."
Perhaps you can provide a citation - or better yet, a reprint - of your seminal publications on this issue.
PB: "A reanalysis of life. Or how contemporary biology terminates the Darwinian era." By Dr P. Borger (In preparation).
Every now and than I have to present some of my ideas on a pro-evolutionary forum. To see how they will be conceived and for adaptation purposes. With great succes, I have to say. And maybe you didn't get it, "One doesn't have to be evolutionist to know something about biology".
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by derwood, posted 12-20-2002 12:21 AM derwood has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by John, posted 12-20-2002 5:29 PM peter borger has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 102 (27522)
12-20-2002 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by peter borger
12-20-2002 5:22 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
PB: "A reanalysis of life. Or how contemporary biology terminates the Darwinian era." By Dr P. Borger (In preparation).
So..... you mean to contribute, then? You haven't actually done so yet.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by peter borger, posted 12-20-2002 5:22 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by peter borger, posted 12-20-2002 8:34 PM John has not replied
 Message 58 by peter borger, posted 12-20-2002 8:35 PM John has replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7742 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 55 of 102 (27523)
12-20-2002 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Mammuthus
12-20-2002 5:46 AM


[copy deleted]
[This message has been edited by peter borger, 12-20-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Mammuthus, posted 12-20-2002 5:46 AM Mammuthus has not replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7742 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 56 of 102 (27525)
12-20-2002 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Mammuthus
12-20-2002 5:46 AM


Dear Mammuthus and Dr Page,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by SLPx:
PB:
the ancient mtDNA in human/primates
I do hope that you are still not trying to claim that the paper in question posits a human-chimp divergence at 150,000 years ago...If so, that one example will "bring down" your entire feces..
I mean thesis...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: Here Dr Page demonstrates again that he is unable to discuss scientifically on the topic of evolutionism.
M: Actually, everything on his list has been shown to be 1. a result of Borger's lack of any kind of relevant background in genetics and thus completely distorted views i.e. W.nobilis, ZFX 2. Ignoring the evidence exactly against what he is saying 3. claiming that the authors for any reference given against his point either say exactly the opposite of what they are saying or that the data says something that is does not i.e. 150 kya last common ancestor of chimp and human.
4. And most commonly, being repeatedly demonstrated to be wrong...
PB: How can one be wrong while we don't know what truth is? It were my INTERPRETATIONS and they are as good as yours.
...but then repeating the same falsehoods over and over without ever substantiating the claims.
PB: The issue is that you and Dr Page like story telling, while I prefer science.
And, it doesn't become you to be in the company of Dr Page.
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Mammuthus, posted 12-20-2002 5:46 AM Mammuthus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by mark24, posted 12-20-2002 8:43 PM peter borger has replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7742 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 57 of 102 (27539)
12-20-2002 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by John
12-20-2002 5:29 PM


Dear john,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by peter borger:
PB: "A reanalysis of life. Or how contemporary biology terminates the Darwinian era." By Dr P. Borger (In preparation).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J: So..... you mean to contribute, then? You haven't actually done so yet.
PB: You've had the privilege to already taste a bit of this reanalysis.
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by John, posted 12-20-2002 5:29 PM John has not replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7742 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 58 of 102 (27540)
12-20-2002 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by John
12-20-2002 5:29 PM


Dear john,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by peter borger:
PB: "A reanalysis of life. Or how contemporary biology terminates the Darwinian era." By Dr P. Borger (In preparation).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J: So..... you mean to contribute, then? You haven't actually done so yet.
PB: You've had the privilege to already taste a bit of this reanalysis on this forum.
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by John, posted 12-20-2002 5:29 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by John, posted 12-20-2002 9:59 PM peter borger has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5272 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 59 of 102 (27542)
12-20-2002 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by peter borger
12-20-2002 5:45 PM


quote:
PB: Here Dr Page demonstrates again that he is unable to discuss scientifically on the topic of evolutionism.
Well, I'm not anyone else could, either, since know one but you knows what "evolutionism" is.
quote:
PB: How can one be wrong while we don't know what truth is? It were my INTERPRETATIONS and they are as good as yours.
...but then repeating the same falsehoods over and over without ever substantiating the claims.
So how can you not be wrong, but tell SLPx he is repeating falsehoods? Surely they are his interpretations, non?
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-20-2002]
[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-20-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by peter borger, posted 12-20-2002 5:45 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by peter borger, posted 12-20-2002 8:50 PM mark24 has replied
 Message 63 by peter borger, posted 12-20-2002 10:03 PM mark24 has not replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7742 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 60 of 102 (27544)
12-20-2002 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by mark24
12-20-2002 8:43 PM


Dear mark,
PB: See my explanation to Buddika in "C. Bohar's debate challenge thread."
Hint: 'creation-creationism' compares to 'evolution-.....'
best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by mark24, posted 12-20-2002 8:43 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by mark24, posted 12-20-2002 9:24 PM peter borger 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