|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 10/07/2004 : 19:21:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
Filthy, your requests to define "kind" are reasonable, but you have to remember you are speaking to people who lack reason. I have asked 3-4 times, Lobster (another evolutionist at the forum) has also asked. They refuse to define it in any way that has meaning. If memory serves me right, their definition was something like, "The types of life that god originally created." Basically what they are saying is that god created either a dog, wolf, or coyote, and then that "microevolved" into the other two types.
You also have to remember that kind is nothing like species. Simply put, kind is what ever they want it to be.
Of course, that's no answer at all, and I've heard similar before. At which point I begin to, more or less politly, depending, demand specifics. Of course, I get answers ranging from hopeful fantasy to flames and condemnation, to outright gibberish. And no two answers are ever the same.
These days, I only get involved in creationist arguments for the fun of it. As they rarely give more than the lightest of examinations to opposing views however well presented and documented, they are easy to to hand a dose of apoplexy.
Damn, I have no life.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
| Edited by - filthy on 10/07/2004 19:35:17 |
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2004 : 19:30:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Peptide
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
Hmm. Looks like we need another definition. Aha, I got it!! We have mammal kind, reptile kind people kind and so forth. This wraps it up in a tidy package and solves Noah's lack of space problem in one fell swoop, as it is understood that he only had to have kinds aboard the Ark. (Not sure, but I think it was Woodmorappe that came up with this 'kinds on the Ark' nonsense.)
A bit of an exageration, of course, but that's pretty much the way it goes. Amusing, up to a point.
I prefer vertebrate and invertebrate as the created kinds. That way there was enough room for shuffleboard on the ark.
Of course! And if the four animals aboard were, say, mice and a couple of dung beetles, there would be ample space for a spa, saloon, casino, and a trap shoot on the fantail.
Great!
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2004 : 05:22:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Of course! And if the four animals aboard were, say, mice and a couple of dung beetles, there would be ample space for a spa, saloon, casino, and a trap shoot on the fantail.
Great!
Filthy,
Remeber that Noah released ravens and doves at the end of the cruise. Therefore based on what you said evolution is shown to be totally false and the bible must be taken literally.
-- Just warming you guys up for the 'logic' that is going to be used in the upcoming tk debate.--
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2004 : 06:49:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
quote:
Of course! And if the four animals aboard were, say, mice and a couple of dung beetles, there would be ample space for a spa, saloon, casino, and a trap shoot on the fantail.
Great!
Filthy,
Remeber that Noah released ravens and doves at the end of the cruise. Therefore based on what you said evolution is shown to be totally false and the bible must be taken literally.
-- Just warming you guys up for the 'logic' that is going to be used in the upcoming tk debate.--
Of course the Bible must be taken literally! The ravens and the aforementioned dung beetles prove beyond doubt that all things with wings are of a kind. They were both on the Ark, weren't they?
Pretty silly, but it's the kind of reasoning you might run into from a desperate YEC. Heh, from what I've seen of Skeptictimes, Peptide may well be presented with equal or worse.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Peptide
Skeptic Friend
USA
69 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2004 : 10:28:22 [Permalink]
|
I think I have decided on my second piece of evidence (the first being ERV's). I am going to use the evolution of the mammalian middle ear and jaw. I can argue for the transitional nature of the intermediates and also argue that the mammalian middle ear represents the evolution of an IC system. I will also mention that mammalian embryonic development mirrors the order of the fossils in the fossil record. In case no one has seen the fossil series:
 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2004 : 11:01:12 [Permalink]
|
So I sent an email to eight people who are publicly on the leading edge of the evolution/creation "debate," citing tksgurl's ideas about "ccdi9" and asking for help in figuring out what she's talking about.
The items of hers which I thought might provide clues as to the proper identification of "ccdi9" - all of which have been quoted in these threads here - were characterized by the respondents to my email as "incoherent babble," "bafflegab," "garbage that doesn't make any sense," and "gibberish." These are not ambiguous terms.
And when I told them that "ccdi9" seemed like something more than a simple "irreducible complexity" argument (due to its being a "rule of thumb" and all), I was told that I was probably giving tksgurl far too much credit.
Basically, the advice I was given was "get a reference, or ignore her." Obviously, the consensus seems to be that she's making this stuff up. I was hoping for something more concrete, but it's probably just seen as a waste of time. It's obviously not up to those guys, or us for that matter, to find support for tksgurl's hot air.
Despite my desire for a firm answer on this, I may have to concede that there won't be one unless tksgurl becomes uncharacteristically verbose about it.
If "ccdi9" rears its ugly head in the upcoming "debate," I would suggest responding to it by simply saying that until proper citations are provided, there is no reason to believe that it exists at all. Appeals to ignorance are perfectly legitimate when the sole source of knowledge (tksgurl) refuses to enlighten people, and then claims to "pwn" people with her secrets. Such appeals to ignorance in the face of reticence are either called "finding a mistake," or "catching someone in a lie." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2004 : 11:32:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Peptide
I will also mention that mammalian embryonic development mirrors the order of the fossils in the fossil record.
You're talking about the embryos with "gills" and such, no? Not being trained at all in evolutionary biology (And being several years past my time in high school/undergraduate basic science classes), I thought this was a myth. Am I wrong? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2004 : 11:51:24 [Permalink]
|
Peptide wrote:quote:
I will also mention that mammalian embryonic development mirrors the order of the fossils in the fossil record.
Why would you do that?...development does not proceed in a fashion that resembles the evolutionary sequence; as Wells points out (echoing the same criticisms that have been made for over a hundred years), the very earliest stages of development can differ radically. They then converge on a similar appearance at the phylotypic stage, and diverge in morphology again.
- Wells and Haeckel's Embryos |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Peptide
Skeptic Friend
USA
69 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2004 : 13:13:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
You're talking about the embryos with "gills" and such, no? Not being trained at all in evolutionary biology (And being several years past my time in high school/undergraduate basic science classes), I thought this was a myth. Am I wrong?
In reptiles, there is one middle ear bone and three lower jaw bones. In the mammal there are three middle ear bones and one lower jaw bone. In the fossil record we can see two of the lower jaw bones move up into the middle ear. We see the same thing occuring during embryonic development in mammals. At the start there are three centers of ossification (ie early bone formation) and over time two of those centers of ossification move up into the middle ear mirroring what we see in the fossil record. This is intended to counter the claim that linking the fossils is unscientific. Creationists will claim that those fossils represent specially created organisms that do not share common ancestory. The fact that embryonic development and the fossil record share striking similarities with development disrupts this argument.
The original theory, Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny, has been dropped because there are departures from the ORDER of the phylogeny. That is, certain mammalian characteristics may appear before the reptillian charactistics disappear and so forth. It is not a straight recapitulation but rather a mosaic of change from simple constructs to more complex mammalian constructs. Ironically, species today are sometimes classified by differences in embryonic development.
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2004 : 20:00:07 [Permalink]
|
Ricky wrote:quote:
I think that is more than enough to conclude that it doesn't exist.
You're probably correct.
I've been trying hard to beat down my idealism, but it's difficult. And my idealism tells me to give the folks at SkepticTimes a decent chance to admit to a mistake or misunderstanding, before concluding that "ccdi9" is just a fabrication culled only from their own heads.
However, given the number of times they've been asked about it yet remained silent, coupled with the fact that the professors and other experts I asked considered the "equations" about "ccdi9" to be "bafflegab," I suppose tksgurl and the others have had plenty of chances already.
This is a Loch Ness Monster kind of deal: we know where to find "ccdi9," we've got the right technology to look for it, and we've enlisted the help of eminently qualified experts in our search, but it remains invisible. And all the proponents do is wave Ws, Xs, Ys and Zs around in an incomprehensible haze, and scream "that's it!"
It really is time for me to agree that while "ccdi9" might make for a better tourist trade at SkepticTimes (as Nessy does for Scotland), it's a complete fiction.
Thanks, Ricky. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2004 : 20:23:29 [Permalink]
|
| Yes, I have to agree that "ccdi9" is nothing more than nonsense. The response to that particular topic, if it comes up in their "debate" thread, should simply be.. "Provide references and an adequate description, or retract that "bafflegab" from the thread." |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2004 : 01:18:44 [Permalink]
|
When presented with a problem, every now and then one stumble on an unexpected solution.
Often, we focus on a specific species evolving this or that way. While randomly browsing Animal Diversity Web I stumbled upon something interesting. I might have mention this before, but I feel it should be cross-examined by you again.
A classic Creationist misrepresentation of evolution is the comment "you don't see cat evolving into a dog" (exchange cat and dog for random species). The fallacy is of course that they insist that an existing species extremely quickly should evolve into another existing species.
Here is my hypothesis:
As specific parameters of an ecological niche changes, animals evolve to keep up, or if they don't, other animals will move in instead. If two different geographical locations have similar conditions, that niche will be filled with the most adapted and adaptive animal in proximity of that niche. It will evolve to fill that niche.
My example is the ecological niche which the northern Raccoon occupy.
Suppose that a similar niche opens in Asia where there are no family of Procyonidae. Some other kind of animal (note that 'kind' will be applicable to the creationist lack of definition if 'kind'), for example bear (family: ursidae) or dog (family: canidae).
In the case of dog, what evolved was the Raccoon Dog.
In case of the bear, we get the Red Panda
Please note the similarities in body, fur, and colour/masking.
Both are omnivorus (which is not unexpected for a Red Panda, but it came as a surprise to me that the raccoon dog was).
I propose that for all practical purposes, an animal of 'kind' Dog has evolved into 'kind' Raccoon. Or that a branch of Dog and a branch of Bear/Panda have evolved to a similar species.
Edited for spelling. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 10/09/2004 04:55:44 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2004 : 01:31:21 [Permalink]
|
Wow. Excellent idea and line of thinking, Dr. M.
It's one of those things in Evolution that you kind of know or expect, but don't really formulize into a concrete thought. (Or at least I didn't.) I mean, what you bring up makes perfect sense, I just never thought about in those terms.
Anyone know if this particular line of thinking has ever been put forth in a debate? I think it has in some fashion. I seem to remember a discussion about flight in birds and flight and bats being an example of independant organisms adapting similar mechanisms in order to fill the same niche (winged-insect carnivores). If memory serves, the Creationist response was that dissimilar creatures displaying similar adaptations is actually indicative of a single creator. Much like a painter or sculptor has a peculiar "style," so too can these similarities be explained as repeating themes within god's work.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 10/09/2004 01:33:37 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
