Willowtree's Scientific Evidence against Evolution

No surprise at all, really. Why would anyone bother? The bloody thing had a pouch, like other marsupials, and unlike wolves! It was, by definition, a marsupial, not a placental like true wolves are.Makes you wonder what the designer was up to. I mean, if pouches are so great on a wolf-shaped thing, why did the creator not give them to true wolves? To use a less-good design when a better one is available is not, by any definition, good design.Conversely, if pouches are less good (as I suggest here), why did that design get used in thylacines, when he knew of and used the better one in wolves?And if they are equally good designs, why bother making wolves (or thylacines) at all? Why not simply have wolves (or thylacines)?"God moves in mysterious ways, his creations' minds to darken."DT[This message has been edited by Darwinsterrier, 12-17-2003]

Ah, the old creationist game of taxonomy by name. We see it a lot in Homo / Australopithecus discussions.The thylacine is called both the ‘Tasmanian wolf’ and the ‘Tasmanian tiger’, though I gather that ‘Tazzy Tiger’ is the more common term actually in Tasmania. It is, of course, neither felid nor canid. It’s a marsupial.Presumably, Elder, you think that ladybirds are birds, flying foxes are foxes, and painted ladies are all female and their wing patterns are paint. Let’s see... If the Thylicine was a product of convergent evolution... okay so far, looks like there’s evidence about to be presented... how could this sample have ever been found or preserved? Um, is it me? ‘If the Thylacine was a product of convergent evolution, how could we ever get a foetus of it and pickle it?’ Hmm, that’s a stumper.Perhaps by cutting up a pregnant female, putting it in a jar and pouring on formaldehyde? (I realise the just-so story nature of that, sorry!) And what, pray, would you expect a later-term thylacine foetus to look like? Tell you what, though: get a pic of one just after it was born. I’ll bet you fifty quid that it won’t look like a newborn wolf pup.If you want to talk embryos, though, take a look at this: Would you care to tell me -- without cheating -- what species... hell, what order... it belongs to? Notice the tail?(Incidentally, what's with all these trees suddenly? We've got a willow, and now an elder. Watch this space for 'Herbaceous Border'. (Phrases like 'two short planks' keep popping into my mind... )TTFN, DT

Sorry, right phylum, wrong class.

Hey, Elder, here’s another question: if thylacines are wolves, perhaps you could tell me what kind this is? Come to that, what is it?

Say, Willow old chap, could you tell me please what dictionary you normally use?No definition I’ve ever seen of philosophy or ideology suggests that they are, in themselves, evidence of anything. They involve argument and contention, and may or may not include evidence to justify those arguments and contentions. But neither area actually is evidence.Evidence is separate; it is what should be used to support or refute a hypothesis, philosophical position, theory or piece of ideology.There’s no such thing as philosophical and ideological evidence.This is where you seem confused: you think you’ve been offering evidence that we’ve been ignoring. In fact, all you have offered is argument, with no evidence to support it.If you can justify your philosophical and ideological positions, please do. Let’s see your evidence.TTFN, DT

Wrong again, I'm afraid. But closer. It must be something with a tail...DT[This message has been edited by Darwinsterrier, 12-18-2003]

...and the first smartarse who says 'you haven't changed a bit!' will get added to the Kent Hovind Newsletter distribution But it can't be human... we don't have tails! Oh, wait... we've got a coccyx... nah, that can't be right...(Eddited fro tyop)[This message has been edited by Darwinsterrier, 12-18-2003]

Okay, what's that 'cat' up the tree then? Are there any baraminologists who'd like to comment?Yes, this is aimless... but no more futile than most of these discussions, I'd guess...

Yeah, I was wondering about this too. Elder seems to be suggesting that thylacines are the same 'kind' as wolves. Does this make, say, Tasmanian devils wolf kind too?DT

Modern evolutionary theory is not incompatible with atheism. However, it is also not incompatible with theism.There is a world of difference between A being compatible with B, and A being predicated on B. Though I'm not, by now, expecting you to understand this .TTFN, DT

I have to say that WT is just about the only creationist I've encountered who is willing to admit defeat, and admit it graciously. Massive kudos to him for that: see this post for an example. It's hardly surprising that he (I take it Willow is a he? He/she has never corrected us, but for some reason -- the politeness under fire, perhaps -- I thought 'he' was a 'she' for quite a while) should retreat from science to 'safer' (ie, irrefutable) turf.Oolon Colluphid's How to be a creationist Rule #4: "If in doubt, turn the discussion onto theology." Science, unsurprisingly, wins in matters of the real world, ie science. But science can have little to say on theology, so when the debate moves there, the two sides can merrily talk past each other for ever. "Evidence? It's about belief!"Cheers, DT

It's been down the last couple of days, and I'm starting to get shivers and hot-cold flushes. If it stays like it, I'll email Doubting Didymus or the others and see if the problem's major.I'm expecting IPU intervention shortly though. She's rather more reliable than theists' gods.Cheers, DT / Oolon

Hi Willow I’m intrigued as to why god might bother to do anything, let alone go to all the trouble of intricately creating so many ‘kinds’ of creature. Surely for anything to go to so much trouble, there must be some minimum sort of need: entertainment, perhaps, or just... you know... something to occupy His mind? Otherwise... why bother? If there’s no desire for an outcome (and the Bible seems pretty clear that God does ‘want’ stuff to happen), there’s no reason to do what’ll produce that outcome.Sorry, off topic I know, but every time I hear the ‘god has no needs’ line, it makes me wonder what it’s all for then. Not to steal Ned’s thunder on this idea, but I suggested pretty much exactly the same thing back here:

quote:

---

I’d like to propose to you that, if there were a vastly intelligent, immortal creator, then the one thing that the world might be is boring. Where’s the fun, if you’ve made and control everything? I’d suggest that the one thing such a being would do is to use mechanisms that are inherently unpredictable in their outcomes. Why is a universe involving quantum indeterminacy, chaos theory, and natural selection not just the sort of thing that such a being would make, so as to constantly produce novelty and surprises, even to himself?

---

And I got that idea from Timothy Ferris’s The Whole Shebang.Cheers, DT

So, the Allies ‘won’ the Second World War... but the Fourth Reich may still rise, eh?It sure is a curious dictionary you use, Willow. It seems that, say, a football team can win a match, but the other team may not have been defeated. Perhaps you could define the term ‘winner’, as you see it please? I quite understand the time constraints. However, my post was on 22 December, and you’ve made countless other posts yourself since then. Maybe you just can’t be bothered to try? If however you cannot refute my argument, then why won’t you accept the (provisional, as with all science) conclusion that you are likely wrong?Since you are not, now, admitting defeat -- despite me winning -- your kudos has just evaporated. Scare? That is not my intent. If I am wrong, show me. I hope I would admit it, and change my views if necessary. But despite being apparently wrong, you will not change. I find that outstandingly arrogant.In your own mind, you are right, regardless of what you are shown, regardless of your inability to refute contrary argument put to you. There is utterly no point in debating with you then. Nope. Mutation and selection act as if they are mindless, so we may as well regard them as that. It just means that he is not required to explain what we see. He is refuted by the stupidity of the designs. It doesn’t. Gods are simply not considered, any more than gremlins are. They might be involved, but since the world acts as if they’re not, we don’t need to include them in our explanations. Yes, it’s a theological conclusion that, because gods don’t seem to be involved, they are actually not even there. But it is a conclusion that individuals draw for themselves -- and plenty of people, many scientists among them, are happy to allow for a generally non-interventionist god. Maybe you are only distrustful of argument and evidence which contradicts your own, unsupported, world view? I do not understand why, if you prefer the cosiness of impervious, concrete-bunker faith to evidence-based reality... if no argument can sway you... I don’t understand why you bother to come here to debate. Please explain. Huh? You mean that very long, poorly formatted post which replied to someone else (wj), consisting of heaps about theology, philosophy, Milton, Johnson, quotes from Williams?Oh I see, I am in there after all.I was going to say sorry, simply missed it, and I’d get to it shortly. But, maybe I will at some point, but actually, I can’t be bothered. Would you like me to rustle up a list of all the questions you still have not answered? Till you reply to more of those, and until you demonstrate that there is any point in discussing these matters with you anyway, I quite frankly cannot be arsed.TTFN, DT