|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
 Posted - 04/24/2006 : 12:56:33 [Permalink]
|
I comment here only on one concept at a time from the above post because it's much too time consuming to go line by line.
Bill you seem to be concerned about "proof" of evolution vs overwhelming evidence.quote:
(bill) So would the evolutionist say that it can be empirically demonstrated that vertebrate life arose in the sea as a jawless eel-like critters? Or would they say that it can be empirically demonstrated that vertebrate life arose in the sea and the latest theory is that it was a jawless eel-like critter? Or would they say that in theory the first vertebrate arose from the sea and in further theory this might be a jawless eel-like critter?
I just want to make sure I understand what the evolutionist puts forth as theory and what they put forth as empirically demonstrated as sometimes it can difficult to discern between the two.
Why would knowing the exact sequence of the evolution of humans be so much more important than knowing the approximate sequence?
As it turns out, genetic research will eventually give us a more exact sequence of events in those steps. Archeology and paleontology provided a pretty good record of human migration out of Africa. Genetic research came along and was able to map the migrations more exactly by following genetic mutation trails. The conclusions drawn from archeology and paleontology evidence was confirmed in a very high percentage of cases. Genetic research showed a few errors. Mapping language evolution also correlated very closely with the accumulated evidence.
Genetic research will eventually provide the details you seem to be clinging to as evidence evolution did not occur. There is a massive amount of data to collect and analyze or we would have the information already. Skeletal remains show the steps in evolution. Genetic analysis fills in those supposed gaps at the level of DNA changes. Either way, the gaps are not significant as evidence against evolution. Denial of evolution is a futile endeavor. |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/24/2006 : 13:02:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
So would the evolutionist say that it can be empirically demonstrated that vertebrate life arose in the sea as a jawless eel-like critters? Or would they say that it can be empirically demonstrated that vertebrate life arose in the sea and the latest theory is that it was a jawless eel-like critter? Or would they say that in theory the first vertebrate arose from the sea and in further theory this might be a jawless eel-like critter?
Beats me, because if you're going to be so nit-picky about the language I use, then I have to reply that I don't know of any "evolutionists," and so can't guess one way or another about what they might think.quote:
I just want to make sure I understand what the evolutionist puts forth as theory and what they put forth as empirically demonstrated as sometimes it can difficult to discern between the two.
You'll have to find an "evolutionist" and ask for yourself.quote:
Theory or empirically demonstrated? Because you just told me earlier it was the sea and now it is a pond that is why I ask.quote:
The strength of the evidence suggests that vertebrate life arose in the sea.
Apparently, you're not interested in learning this stuff if you refuse to acknowledge the distinction between the earliest vertebrates and the earliest tetrapods.quote:
What would be the evolutionists definition for a dinosaur?
What's it matter, or do you think there are dinosaurs living today?quote:
Can you go into some of this evidence? I am very interested as to how lungs and limbs, to be used on land, get developed by natural selection in the water before the critter is even on land.
Who said that lungs and limbs were developed for use on land?quote:
To me it seems like that would take forethought and design?
Only if you assume that lungs and limbs have no use in the water.quote:
Is that why the evolutionist will clarify that it was a pond or puddle of water rather then the open sea?
I don't know what evolutionists think, Bill.quote:
Where did these ponds and puddles come from...
You don't know how ponds and/or puddles are created, either?quote:
What about if you used google or some of your favorite websites, then can you give me a good list of all the true links that have been uncovered in the dino-bird transition or any other transition from group to group for that matter?
True links are only important to creationist arguments, as far as I can tell. But then the creationists, upon seeing a broken lamp and a child in the same room, will hypocritically conclude that the child broke the lamp, despite the lack of any "true link" between them.quote:
How so? You made the point that in modern bird classification it is often difficult to classify what is bird.
No, I made the opposite point, Bill: those animals with feathers are what we call "birds" today, regardless of the vast morphological differences among them.quote:
I simply asked why then would it not be even more difficult to identify, and agree on, a bird fossil that is 250 million years old when we can't even agree on modern birds?
No, because there is no lack of agreement on modern birds.quote:
I mean heck, the evolutionist cannot even agree with each other on what it is as I listed several that rejected Archaeopteryx as evidence for the dino-bird transition and they have labeled it a bird.
I don't know about evolutionists, but paleontologists all agree that Archaeopteryx was a bird. Some few reject the idea that it represents a transition between dinosaurs and modern birds, but nobody rejects the idea that it was a bird.quote:
They still promoted dino-bird evolution, yes, but as far as Archaeopteryx they rejected this piece for evidence of such a transition.
And you still haven't shown us why they rejected it.quote:
Again, I would say that that is your arbitrary opinion that it is transitional rather then just be called transitional.
What the hell does that mean?quote:
Archaeopteryx may appear to share traits between two groups but that is a far cry from demonstrating empirically that the critter being fossilized was somewhere between dinos and birds.
How else would you classify it?quote:
Where are the true links to back this up?
Where are the true links between you and, say, Noah's family which would prove that you are one of God's children, Bill?quote:
All you have is a "glimpse" of a possible mechanism that maybe could make the dino-bird tra |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 04/24/2006 : 13:36:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
I think what the author was trying to say is that the Archaeopteryx was fully capable of flight and therefore was a bird - of course using that definition an Ostrich is not a bird.
If definition of a bird is flight, then so is the bat. |
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. |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 04/24/2006 : 13:39:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
If definition of a bird is flight, then so is the bat.
That is what the bible says, so it must be true, and anyone calling bats something other than a bird is going against the word of god. Rabbits also chew cud, but I digress. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 04/24/2006 : 14:30:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W
Look, if all we had were bird fossils which looked very close to modern birds, then we'd have no idea where they came from.
quote:
Originally posted by Bill
(bill) Sure we would. We would realize they came from birds...
That would not be empirically shown and it would "only be a theory". Your own logic should tell you that you would not be able to make this statement.
I just thought I'd repost something I first posted on page 5. I'm doing this because you continue to fail to understand what it meant. If you need clarification, you can always make me explain it better.
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Scott
I am sure he does not think that we have discovered all the species of bird there is to discover, alive or extinct, does he?
quote:
Originally posted by Hawks
The main thrust of your argument here seems to be that since we don't have all the facts, we can't draw any conclusions at all. This would of course apply to anything being studied. For example, since we don't know all the intricacies of photosynthesis, we can't draw the conclusion that plants "eat" carbon-dioxide. This is obviously silly.
In science, it is realised that we can't have all the facts and that it also possible that we may have misinterpreted the evidence making us draw faulty conclusions. This is why all scientific "theories" are subject to revision. The best scientific theory is the one that that best explains the current evidence (and not all possible forms of evidence that might appear sometime in the future).
|
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 04/24/2006 : 16:49:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill:
Can you go into some of this evidence? I am very interested as to how lungs and limbs, to be used on land, get developed by natural selection in the water before the critter is even on land. To me it seems like that would take forethought and design?
If the first land creatures were so well "designed", why are they extinct? In fact, if you are proposing that life is designed, how do you explain the many examples of really bad design? |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 04/24/2006 : 17:23:41 [Permalink]
|
| Practice makes perfect... |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 04/25/2006 : 07:58:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
So would the evolutionist say that it can be empirically demonstrated that vertebrate life arose in the sea as a jawless eel-like critters? Or would they say that it can be empirically demonstrated that vertebrate life arose in the sea and the latest theory is that it was a jawless eel-like critter? Or would they say that in theory the first vertebrate arose from the sea and in further theory this might be a jawless eel-like critter?
Beats me, because if you're going to be so nit-picky about the language I use, then I have to reply that I don't know of any "evolutionists," and so can't guess one way or another about what they might think.
(bill) Nit-picky? All I wanted to know is what the supporter of this statement below (you) advanced as empirical fact and what they advanced in theory?
"The strength of the evidence suggests that vertebrate life arose in the sea, as jawless eel-like critters, which later developed jaws, paired fins, etc (in other words, fish evolved from them). Then the fish eventually left the sea as amphibians."
quote:
The strength of the evidence suggests that vertebrate life arose in the sea,
(bill) Is this theory or empirical fact? What evidence?
quote:
as jawless eel-like critters, which later developed jaws, paired fins, etc (in other words, fish evolved from them).
(bill) Is this theory or empirical fact? And where did this life come from and what was it like before it was a jawless ell like critter? And what evidence do have to support this?
quote:
Then the fish eventually left the sea as amphibians.
(bill) Is this theory or empirical fact?
quote:
quote:
I just want to make sure I understand what the evolutionist puts forth as theory and what they put forth as empirically demonstrated as sometimes it can difficult to discern between the two.
You'll have to find an "evolutionist" and ask for yourself.
(bill) And when I do you can see why I need to nail him/her down on what it is they project as fact and what they project as theory as many times they themselves do not even know or will refuse to share that with you.
quote:
Apparently, you're not interested in learning this stuff if you refuse to acknowledge the distinction between the earliest vertebrates and the earliest tetrapods.
(bill) OK, I see your distinction here. What can you tell me about this early vertebrate life? Before it turned into a jawless eel like critter that is...
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Can you go into some of this evidence? I am very interested as to how lungs and limbs, to be used on land, get developed by natural selection in the water before the critter is even on land.
Who said that lungs and limbs were developed for use on land?
To me it seems like that would take forethought and design?
Only if you assume that lungs and limbs have no use in the water.
(bill) That is why I am asking. Can you share a little information on how you think the lungs and limbs evolved?
quote:
quote:
Is that why the evolutionist will clarify that it was a pond or puddle of water rather then the open sea?
I don't know what evolutionists think, Bill.
(bill) OK, then how about you? Is that why you clarify that it was water and not the open sea? What evidence do you base this on?
quote:
quote:
Where did these ponds and puddles come from...
You don't know how ponds and/or puddles are created, either?
(bill) Of course I don't know how the ponds and puddles in your story are created, it's not my story, but rather yours. That is why I am asking you? I know, I know, "they were just there bill." I just had a flash back from the discussion on the origin of Darwin's primordial entities. "Who cares where they came from Bill?"
So are these puddles and ponds theory or empirical facts?
quote:
quote:
What about if you used goggle or some of your favorite websites, then can you give me a good list of all the true links that have been uncovered in the dino-bird transition or any other transition from group to group for that matter?
True links are only important to crea |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
| Edited by - Bill scott on 04/25/2006 08:04:42 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 04/25/2006 : 09:00:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
(bill) Bird lungs are needed to fly. Archae could fly. Achae was a bird.
(not bill) Then according to your logic, bats have bird lungs, as do house flys.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 04/25/2006 : 09:03:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
(bill) Oh, it matters. All you have given as evidence for the dino-bird transition is a bird (Archaeopteryx) and some highly questionable fossils that may have come from a fossil factory...
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
| Edited by - furshur on 04/25/2006 09:04:56 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 04/25/2006 : 10:02:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
quote:
(bill) Oh, it matters. All you have given as evidence for the dino-bird transition is a bird (Archaeopteryx) and some highly questionable fossils that may have come from a fossil factory...
quote:
highly questionable fossils that may have come from a fossil factory...
Darwin himself knew that vital to his theory was the finding of "change" fossils for millions and millions of end species. In 1859 he was confident later geologists would find them.
But none have been found in the nearly one hundred fifty years since 1859. As the book, "Tornado in a Junk Yard" puts it, " …only that the fossil record does not support evolution. This is true for every class of animal…Today we have innumerable fossils from the Earth's most ancient rocks…Yet there are no transitional fossils linking microorganisms and complex invertebrates." (Consult the book for detailed support.)
There have been a few fraudulent "fossils". Eagerly embraced for years until the fraud was exposed and reluctantly acknowledged. But those few frauds are the extent of history's changeover fossils.
Fossils as frauds? Surely not. Discovery magazine printed an interview with evolutionary biologist Alan Feduccia. Question - "So far, only one feathered dinosaur, Arcvhaeoraptor, has been publicly acknowledged as a forgery. You think there are others?"
Answer. "Arcxhaeoraptor is just the tip of the iceberg. There are scores of false fossils out there, and they have cast a dark shadow over the whole field. When you go to these fossil shows, it's difficult to tell which ones are faked and which ones are not. I have heard that there is a fake fossil factory in northeastern China, in Liaoning province, near the deposits where many of these alleged feathered dinosaurs were found."
Asked why anyone would fake a fossil, Feduccia answered, "Money. The Chinese fossil trade has become a big business. These fossil forgeries have been sold on the black market for years now, for huge sums of money."
http://www.terrehautecog.org/CreationCorner07.htm
http://www.csm.org.uk/news.php?viewmessage=34
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 04/25/2006 : 10:04:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
quote:
(bill) Bird lungs are needed to fly. Archae could fly. Achae was a bird.
(not bill) Then according to your logic, bats have bird lungs, as do house flys.
Birds use bird lungs to fly and not dino lungs.
Bats use bat lungs and flys are just plan annoying... |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/25/2006 : 11:10:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
Also, it is you who hypocritically concludes that anybody who accuses a kid of breaking a lamp with circumstantial evidence must be a creationist.
Well, if you're going to completely twist my obvious meaning around into such strawmen, I'll be done here shortly.quote:
quote:
No, because there is no lack of agreement on modern birds.
Then why did you say this to me:
"it seems difficult, at best, to determine what's "fully bird" and what isn't among just the living ones."
Because the focus was on the adverb, not the noun. If today's definition of "bird" is nothing more than "warm blooded, has feathers and forelegs turned into wings," then the objection to Archaeopteryx being a transitional because it is "fully bird" is ludicrous on its face. One can fully meet the defintion of "bird" while still retaining dinosaur traits, just as the tremendous variability in living bird morphology shows. Hummingbirds, penguins and emus are all fully bird per the definition, but only one of them flies, only one of them swims, and the third is orders of magnitude heavier than the first. Being fully bird doesn't seem to do anything to disprove Archae's also meeting the definition of "transitional."quote:
quote:
And you still haven't shown us why they rejected it.
1. The most striking feature of Archaeopteryx is its well-developed feathered wings. These wings are not significantly different in size and shape from those of modern birds such as magpies or coucals, and they give every indication that Archaeopteryx was a flying bird.
That doesn't mean it cannot be a transitional form.quote:
2. In Archaeopteryx the feathers are remarkably similar to those of modern birds. They have a stiffened central shaft to transmit aerodynamic forces generated over the feather vanes to the body, and this would not be expected if the feathers had no mechanical function.
That does not mean that it cannot be a transitional form.quote:
3. More significantly, the feather shaft is set asymmetrically against the vanes of the feather. This permits the feather to distort optimally to compensate for bending in flight due to aerodynamic loads, and is important in both gliding and flapping flight. . . vane asymmetry is characteristic of modern flying birds, but the feathers of most modern flightless birds are symmetrical."
That doesn't mean that Archaeopteryx is not a transitional form.quote:
http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/archaeopteryx.htm
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 04/25/2006 : 12:06:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Birds use bird lungs to fly and not dino lungs.
Bats use bat lungs and flys are just plan annoying...
(not bill) Fine. Archaeopteryx had Archaeopteryx lungs. It didn't have the lungs of a modern bird because it is one of those nonexistant transitional forms.
You know closing your eyes, plugging your ears and going nah-nah-nah-nah is not a very effective method of convincing someone of your point.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 04/25/2006 : 18:18:07 [Permalink]
|
| Still nothing to support your DESIGN assertion Bill? Tell me, why is your designer so seemingly incompetent? |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
