Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,573 Year: 4,830/9,624 Month: 178/427 Week: 91/85 Day: 8/20 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   One Question for Evo-Bashers
mark24
Member (Idle past 5272 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 61 of 102 (27548)
12-20-2002 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by peter borger
12-20-2002 8:50 PM


and the latter part of my last post, Peter?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by peter borger, posted 12-20-2002 8:50 PM peter borger has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 102 (27550)
12-20-2002 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by peter borger
12-20-2002 8:35 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
PB: You've had the privilege to already taste a bit of this reanalysis on this forum.
Then I am profoundly unconcerned.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by peter borger, posted 12-20-2002 8:35 PM peter borger has not replied

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


Message 63 of 102 (27552)
12-20-2002 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by mark24
12-20-2002 8:43 PM


Dear Mark,
M:So how can you not be wrong, but tell SLPx he is repeating falsehoods? Surely they are his interpretations, non?
PB: What interpretations? All Dr Page does is mocking and scoffing. I would really appreciate to hear about his detailed scientific views (like Mammuthus does. At least M is able to elaborate on his views, although often they can be interpreted diffently).
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by mark24, posted 12-20-2002 8:43 PM mark24 has not replied

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


Message 64 of 102 (27554)
12-20-2002 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by David unfamous
12-18-2002 6:01 AM


By evolutionst's own standard, the New Scientist is NOT a peer reviewed journal. Please refer to peer reviewed journals.
On the other hand one of the molecular biologists, Dr Peakall, working on the Wollemi's DNA said in an interview with J. Woodford -- a renowned Australian science journalist-- that evolutionary theory did not sit comfortably. And: 'its all-purpose genome has allowed it to do as well as it can' (for references see my thread: Molecular genetic proof for a multipurpose genome)
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by David unfamous, posted 12-18-2002 6:01 AM David unfamous has not replied

  
logicalunatic
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 102 (27576)
12-21-2002 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by John
12-20-2002 4:26 PM


Woot...
Love the color spectrum analogy
------------------
LogicaLunatic
http://www.objectivity.tk

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by John, posted 12-20-2002 4:26 PM John has not replied

  
logicalunatic
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 102 (27577)
12-21-2002 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by DanskerMan
12-20-2002 5:10 PM


quote:
Originally posted by sonnikke:
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".

Yeah, John...
I get the color analogy, but it doesn't cut it. If it were true, we should find boxes of Crayola Crayons with 1000's of colors of green gradually changing into yellow, at the different stages from green to fully yellow. Instead we find green and we find yellow, no inbetweens. A box of crayons should contain one giant color spectrum with gradual in between colors, NOT the big box of 64 colors. GEEEEZ
Hehe sorry had to.
------------------
LogicaLunatic
http://www.objectivity.tk
*edited* Changed "bog" to "big" in the last sentence.
[This message has been edited by logicalunatic, 12-21-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by DanskerMan, posted 12-20-2002 5:10 PM DanskerMan has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 102 (27591)
12-21-2002 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by DanskerMan
12-20-2002 5:10 PM


quote:
Originally posted by sonnikke:
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".
Well that is where you have to step out of the ideal and into the practical. Not all things that die fossilize. If it doesn't fossilize we don't dig it up. Thus, the fossil record is imperfect. We don't get the whole spectrum, but only bits and pieces of it. There is nothing anyone can do about this.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by DanskerMan, posted 12-20-2002 5:10 PM DanskerMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by shilohproject, posted 12-21-2002 4:27 PM John has replied
 Message 79 by DanskerMan, posted 12-23-2002 11:30 AM John has replied

  
shilohproject
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 102 (27601)
12-21-2002 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by John
12-21-2002 10:18 AM


What about the notion that every fosssil that is not another of the same thing is, in fact, an intermediate species?
I heard that stated recently by a paleobotanist. It has a certain intriguing ring to it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by John, posted 12-21-2002 10:18 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by peter borger, posted 12-21-2002 5:19 PM shilohproject has not replied
 Message 71 by John, posted 12-21-2002 6:06 PM shilohproject has not replied
 Message 72 by Chavalon, posted 12-21-2002 6:26 PM shilohproject has not replied

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


Message 70 of 102 (27602)
12-21-2002 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by shilohproject
12-21-2002 4:27 PM


Dear Shilo,
S: What about the notion that every fosssil that is not another of the same thing is, in fact, an intermediate species?
I heard that stated recently by a paleobotanist. It has a certain intriguing ring to it.
PB: Intruiging? Just more of the same storytelling to keep the hype alive! The issue is that these socalled missing fossils have never been observed by anybody. All you evo-guys do is infer the missing of these fossils, because evolution is right. Dear guys, you will never know anything about this planet since your initial paradigm is wrong!
If I recall properly it was Gould who pointed this out decades ago, and lead to PE hypothesis. Most likely these organism never existed. Why would erosion discriminate? Stick to the facts please and keep it scientific.
Best wishes,
Peter
"It is a dangerous thing to infer things that never existed"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by shilohproject, posted 12-21-2002 4:27 PM shilohproject has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by John, posted 12-21-2002 6:28 PM peter borger has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 102 (27607)
12-21-2002 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by shilohproject
12-21-2002 4:27 PM


quote:
Originally posted by shilohproject:
What about the notion that every fosssil that is not another of the same thing is, in fact, an intermediate species?
I heard that stated recently by a paleobotanist. It has a certain intriguing ring to it.

Unless, I am misunderstanding you, that is exactly what I have been trying to explain to sonnike. I am not exactly sure what you, or the paleobotanist, means by "not another of the same thing." There really isn't two of the same thing at all. We class things that are very similar, but that doesn't make them strictly the same.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by shilohproject, posted 12-21-2002 4:27 PM shilohproject has not replied

  
Chavalon
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 102 (27608)
12-21-2002 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by shilohproject
12-21-2002 4:27 PM


quote:
What about the notion that every fosssil that is not another of the same thing is, in fact, an intermediate species?
That's why taxonomists of fossils can be divided into 'lumpers' and 'splitters'. The lumpers say 'these fossils are obviously very similar - they must be the same species'. The splitters say 'there are all sorts of small differences - they must be different species'.
Of course, the twofold division is arbitrary. You could argue that there are many different categories of splitter...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by shilohproject, posted 12-21-2002 4:27 PM shilohproject has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 102 (27609)
12-21-2002 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by peter borger
12-21-2002 5:19 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
The issue is that these socalled missing fossils have never been observed by anybody. All you evo-guys do is infer the missing of these fossils, because evolution is right.
1) Not everything that dies fossilizes. This is easily demonstrated. Thus the fossil record is going to have gaps. Period. Unless you, dear PB, can demonstrate that EVERYTHING FOSSILIZES you have no ground on which to stand. Some fossils simply never formed. It is a straightforward and very simple inference. Now we don't know what those fossils look like, so....
2) Every baby is born to a parent or parents. This also is easily demonstrated. It happens all around us every day. Another straightforward conclusion is that this has been going on a very long time. We have eggs that are hundreds of million years old, for example.
3) Put #1 and #2 together and you realize that the fossils we do have are most likely connected via parent/child relationships.
4) Study the morphology of the fossils and you can work out the rough relationships between them.
quote:
If I recall properly it was Gould who pointed this out decades ago, and lead to PE hypothesis. Most likely these organism never existed. Why would erosion discriminate? ]
Misrepresenting Gould now? Erosion doesn't distriminate but shorter time frames as PE postulates, mean fewer fossil remains of the creatures who live during the rapid phases of change.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by peter borger, posted 12-21-2002 5:19 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by peter borger, posted 12-21-2002 8:07 PM John has replied

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


Message 74 of 102 (27611)
12-21-2002 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by John
12-21-2002 6:28 PM


Dear John,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by peter borger:
The issue is that these socalled missing fossils have never been observed by anybody. All you evo-guys do is infer the missing of these fossils, because evolution is right.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Not everything that dies fossilizes. This is easily demonstrated. Thus the fossil record is going to have gaps. Period.
PB: Agree. What puzzles me every time I have a look at the fossil record is why erosion discriminates. It would be good for your believe system that the fossil record provides us the real transitions between phyla and classes. It would be pretty convincing. Unfortunately erosion seems to discriminate between fossils. Maybe you have a rational explanation, I don't. O I see, live evolved more than once from scratch. I am reluctant to believe that, unless it is subject to a natural law. Such law would implicate a creating force.
J: Unless you, dear PB, can demonstrate that EVERYTHING FOSSILIZES you have no ground on which to stand. Some fossils simply never formed. It is a straightforward and very simple inference. Now we don't know what those fossils look like, so....
PB: Fossils of the gaps? I thought evolutionist are always objecting to arguments of God of the gaps. But here you do the same. However, still I am very suspicious about the observation that erosion and/or fossilisation is discriminatory.
J: 2) Every baby is born to a parent or parents. This also is easily demonstrated. It happens all around us every day. Another straightforward conclusion is that this has been going on a very long time. We have eggs that are hundreds of million years old, for example.
PB: Inference, my friend. Inference and extrapolation. I hope you know the differnce between inferences, extrapolations and conclusions.
J: 3) Put #1 and #2 together and you realize that the fossils we do have are most likely connected via parent/child relationships.
PB: In brief, you claim that since all children have parents, and parents also have parents, fossils must be transitions forms and evolution is true. Quite some performance of logic! It is a non-sequitur, a fallacy that has nothing in common with logics. You may as well postulate Godidit.
4) Study the morphology of the fossils and you can work out the rough relationships between them.
PB: What has morphology to do with evolution? Nothing.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If I recall properly it was Gould who pointed this out decades ago, and lead to PE hypothesis. Most likely these organism never existed. Why would erosion discriminate?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J: Misrepresenting Gould now?
PB: Gould did the same observation as you and I do with respect to the fossil record and infered PE from it. Yes, John, conclusions from data is highly dependent on the paradigm. You infer non existing fossils to fill in the gaps. Others infer creation. What's the point?
J: Erosion doesn't distriminate but shorter time frames as PE postulates, mean fewer fossil remains of the creatures who live during the rapid phases of change.
PB: So now the data fit in the hype, isn't it. The upside down world again. Importantly, Gould wasn't a biologist. He never gave me the impression that he was aware of the underlying molecular biology of the hypothesis of evolution.
It seems like you are a proponent of PE and gradualism? How do you do that?
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by John, posted 12-21-2002 6:28 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by John, posted 12-21-2002 10:21 PM peter borger has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 102 (27616)
12-21-2002 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by peter borger
12-21-2002 8:07 PM


quote:
PB: Agree. What puzzles me every time I have a look at the fossil record is why erosion discriminates.
Why do you think erosion discriminates?
quote:
It would be good for your believe system that the fossil record provides us the real transitions between phyla and classes.
You mean, "It would be great if we had a better fossil record?" Of course it would be better, but we don't have a better record.
quote:
Unfortunately erosion seems to discriminate between fossils. Maybe you have a rational explanation, I don't.
I can't figure out how you can rationally say that erosion discriminates.
quote:
O I see, live evolved more than once from scratch. I am reluctant to believe that, unless it is subject to a natural law. Such law would implicate a creating force.
Life may have evolved more than once. I tend to think it did, but that it occurred long before we have any record of it. What you propose here isn't a terribly common idea in evolutionary biology, as far as I can tell. So I don't see the point of attacking it.
quote:
PB: Fossils of the gaps? I thought evolutionist are always objecting to arguments of God of the gaps. But here you do the same.
PB, one paragraph above you agreed with me that not everything that dies fossilizes. Why are you contradicting yourself just one breath later?
quote:
However, still I am very suspicious about the observation that erosion and/or fossilisation is discriminatory.
ummm... I am suspicious about that too. But it is, after all, you who keeps saying that such is a fact.
quote:
PB: Inference, my friend. Inference and extrapolation.
Yeah, no kidding. It's called science.
quote:
I hope you know the differnce between inferences, extrapolations and conclusions.
inference: the act of passing from one proposition, statement or judgement considered true to another whose truth is believed to follow from the former
extrapolation: to infer from values within an observed interval; to project, extend, or expand known data into an area not known or experienced so as to arrive at a usually conjectural knowledge of an unknown area.
conclusion: a reasoned judgement, an inference; the necessary consequence of two or more propositions taken as premises.
ummmm..... yeah, I see the differences ?????????????
Come on, 'fess up, you were just trying to bluff your way into sounding smart. The words are very nearly synonymous.
quote:
PB: In brief, you claim that since all children have parents, and parents also have parents, fossils must be transitions forms and evolution is true. Quite some performance of logic!
It must suck to get it and then loose it again so quickly.
quote:
It is a non-sequitur, a fallacy that has nothing in common with logics.
Which part do you deny?
That children have parents, and parents have parents, and so on and so forth?
That this has been the case for a long time?
Or that, given the other two, we are going to find, in the fossil record, things that are related to other things?
See, given that we observe this parent/child connection and we see it in every extant species on the planet, and given that this has been the case for as long as anyone has been paying attention, it follows that everything in the record is connected by a parent/child chain; even if we don't know what that chain is.
This is the rational inference from data. It could be wrong, but over a hundred years has not shown it to be so. This is the inference that you must refute.
quote:
You may as well postulate Godidit.
That seems to be what you are doing.
quote:
PB: What has morphology to do with evolution? Nothing.
Are you joking? You must be joking? Seriously, this is a joke?
1) Fossils are identified how? By looking at them and measuring them. IE, the morphology of the bones is examined.
2) How something stands, or moves, or flies, is not subject to selective pressure? Come on, PB....
quote:
PB: Gould did the same observation as you and I do with respect to the fossil record and infered PE from it.
This is not what you said.
quote:
Yes, John, conclusions from data is highly dependent on the paradigm.
But actually having data brings the whole thing out of the land 'o makebelieve.
quote:
You infer non existing fossils to fill in the gaps. Others infer creation. What's the point?
Ok. I can't figure out which part it is you object to.
1) Not all things that die fossilize. You agreed earlier, and then you didn't.
2) Children have parents.
3) #1 and #2 are likely to have been the case in the distant past.
Thus, the fossil record is incomplete. Ie, there are gaps.
quote:
PB: So now the data fit in the hype, isn't it. The upside down world again.
ummm.... the theory was designed to fit the data. Damned unethical!!!!
quote:
Importantly, Gould wasn't a biologist.
???????????????????
quote:
He never gave me the impression that he was aware of the underlying molecular biology of the hypothesis of evolution.
Reminds me of you.
quote:
It seems like you are a proponent of PE and gradualism? How do you do that?
Yeah, and I drive my car FAST and also SLOW, but not at the same time and not on the same roads. I am very talented.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
{Fixed a quote box - AM}
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-21-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by peter borger, posted 12-21-2002 8:07 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by peter borger, posted 12-21-2002 11:33 PM John has replied

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


Message 76 of 102 (27619)
12-21-2002 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by John
12-21-2002 10:21 PM


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: Agree. What puzzles me every time I have a look at the fossil record is why erosion discriminates.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J: Why do you think erosion discriminates?
PB: I like to see the transition forms between phyla and between classes. Other transitions are irrelevant, it can be explained differently. Apparently they are not in the fossil record, and thus erosion discriminates, or the process of fossilisation disciminates.
Maybe paleontologists/geologist could make a law out of it. The law of discrimination of transitional fossilisation (or something like that)
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It would be good for your believe system that the fossil record provides us the real transitions between phyla and classes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J: You mean, "It would be great if we had a better fossil record?" Of course it would be better, but we don't have a better record.
PB: Yes, it would be great that for once evolutionists came forward with mono-interpretable data.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately erosion seems to discriminate between fossils. Maybe you have a rational explanation, I don't.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J: I can't figure out how you can rationally say that erosion discriminates.
PB: Because of the lack of transtions between the phyla. As mentioned above.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
O I see, live evolved more than once from scratch. I am reluctant to believe that, unless it is subject to a natural law. Such law would implicate a creating force.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J: Life may have evolved more than once. I tend to think it did, but that it occurred long before we have any record of it. What you propose here isn't a terribly common idea in evolutionary biology, as far as I can tell. So I don't see the point of attacking it.
PB: So, now you are going to tell me that the same biochemistry including the genetic code evolved from scratch more than once? If so, it is pointing in the direction of a natural law and that implicates a creative force.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: Fossils of the gaps? I thought evolutionist are always objecting to arguments of God of the gaps. But here you do the same.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J: PB, one paragraph above you agreed with me that not everything that dies fossilizes. Why are you contradicting yourself just one breath later?
PB: Yes, John, of about 1000 T. rexes only 1 (likely much less) fossilised. Same holds for the other species.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, still I am very suspicious about the observation that erosion and/or fossilisation is discriminatory.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J: ummm... I am suspicious about that too. But it is, after all, you who keeps saying that such is a fact.
PB: As explained above.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: Inference, my friend. Inference and extrapolation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J: Yeah, no kidding. It's called science.
PB: According to me 'science' means 'knowledge', not 'inference' or 'extrapolation'. I could be wrong however.
[quote][b]I hope you know the differnce between inferences, extrapolations and conclusions.
J: inference: the act of passing from one proposition, statement or judgement considered true to another whose truth is believed to follow from the former
extrapolation: to infer from values within an observed interval; to project, extend, or expand known data into an area not known or experienced so as to arrive at a usually conjectural knowledge of an unknown area.
conclusion: a reasoned judgement, an inference; the necessary consequence of two or more propositions taken as premises.
ummmm..... yeah, I see the differences ?????????????
Come on, 'fess up, you were just trying to bluff your way into sounding smart. The words are very nearly synonymous.
PB: Not only sounding smart, I am smart.
However, the terms are not equal, and certainly not interchangable.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: In brief, you claim that since all children have parents, and parents also have parents, fossils must be transitions forms and evolution is true. Quite some performance of logic!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J: It must suck to get it and then loose it again so quickly.
PB: To get what? That firebrigade cars in the USA are red?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is a non-sequitur, a fallacy that has nothing in common with logics.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J: Which part do you deny?
That children have parents, and parents have parents, and so on and so forth?
PB: This can easily be checked at the genomic level. It has been demonstrated that all males have a common ancestor, and all females have a common ancestor. Around 50-150 Kya. There it ends.
J: That this has been the case for a long time?
PB: Yes, according to science approx 50-150 Kya.
J: Or that, given the other two, we are going to find, in the fossil record, things that are related to other things?
PB: We haven't found them and it is disputable whether they will be found. I guess they won't.
J: See, given that we observe this parent/child connection and we see it in every extant species on the planet, and given that this has been the case for as long as anyone has been paying attention, it follows that everything in the record is connected by a parent/child chain; even if we don't know what that chain is.
PB: Sometimes it is not as rational as you would like to have it. Molecular biology demonstrates that the current ideas of paleontology and geology could be wrong. I wouldn't be surprised, since it has become clear that hypothesis/theories are usually 'wrong'.
J: This is the rational inference from data. It could be wrong, but over a hundred years has not shown it to be so. This is the inference that you must refute.
PB: No, you infer it from your data. My data show otherwise.
Can the ratio explain the universe? I guess not. It may be able describe the universe, but that's a different story.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You may as well postulate Godidit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J: That seems to be what you are doing.
PB: I do not a priori exclude a possibility. That is bad science.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: What has morphology to do with evolution? Nothing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J: Are you joking? You must be joking? Seriously, this is a joke?
PB: You know what I mean. I take this as a non-answer.
J: 1) Fossils are identified how? By looking at them and measuring them. IE, the morphology of the bones is examined.
PB: So what?
J: 2) How something stands, or moves, or flies, is not subject to selective pressure? Come on, PB....
PB: It could indeed be subject to selection. Selection against to prevent degeneration of the gene pool. See the GUToB at least is explanatory in such matters. (see what it holds with respect to selection in my thread mol gen proof for the MPG).
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: Gould did the same observation as you and I do with respect to the fossil record and infered PE from it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is not what you said.
PB: Actually I didn't say a lot about Gould.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, John, conclusions from data is highly dependent on the paradigm.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J: But actually having data brings the whole thing out of the land 'o makebelieve.
PB: What data are in accord with evolutionism? Not the contemporary biology data, I'm afraid. Probably your interpretation of the fossil record. Fossils are not very informative with respect to biological evolution, since they are extinct and can not be subjected to genetic analysis. The ancient DNA sequences that could be isolated and have been studies defy evolutionary dogma's (As discussed in other threads).
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You infer non existing fossils to fill in the gaps. Others infer creation. What's the point?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J: Ok. I can't figure out which part it is you object to.
1) Not all things that die fossilize. You agreed earlier, and then you didn't.
PB: see above.
2) Children have parents.
3) #1 and #2 are likely to have been the case in the distant past.
PB: Till approx 50-150 Kya for humans. Other organisms unknown.
J: Thus, the fossil record is incomplete. Ie, there are gaps.
PB: Where exactly do we observe the gaps? All major transition forms?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: So now the data fit in the hype, isn't it. The upside down world again.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J: ummm.... the theory was designed to fit the data. Damned unethical!!!!
PB: A theory also has to predict. With respect to biological observations evolutionism is usually wrong. (For instance in the case of genetic redundancies)
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Importantly, Gould wasn't a biologist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J: ???????????????????
PB: He's a paleontologist.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He never gave me the impression that he was aware of the underlying molecular biology of the hypothesis of evolution.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J: Reminds me of you.
PB: Where?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It seems like you are a proponent of PE and gradualism? How do you do that?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J: Yeah, and I drive my car FAST and also SLOW, but not at the same time and not on the same roads. I am very talented.
PB: Everything is possible, I see. Tell me, you fill the tank every now and than? And you decide to drive slow or fast, or the road?
Best wishes,
Peter
[This message has been edited by peter borger, 12-21-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by John, posted 12-21-2002 10:21 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by John, posted 12-22-2002 11:53 AM peter borger has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024