|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 07/14/2007 : 11:26:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Also sprach Jerome: | Hyracotherium: This seems to be a dog. Naming it "dawn horse" does not make it a horse. |
And that's your scientific opinion, Dr. Gnome?
Calling it a horse "a dog" does not make you appear less of an idiot.
|
I didn't, science did:
| This little animal (10-20" at the shoulder) looked nothing at all like a horse. It had a "doggish" look with an arched back, short neck, short snout, short legs, and long tail. |
(from Filthys link)
 |
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 07/14/2007 : 11:30:09 [Permalink]
|
Here's another interesting, fossil series.
And science did not call it a dog; you did. Science called it "dog-like" or "doggish." There's a difference, you know -- or do you?.
|
"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 07/14/2007 11:35:18 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/14/2007 : 11:30:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Filthy, I was looking for an example of a positive genetic mutation that changed a species. A difference in a "kind" is not a genetic mutation that changes the species; these differences are within the species. |
So you're saying that Hyracotherium and Equus burchelli are the same species? Wow! Even though the former you claim is a dog, while the latter is definitely not. So horses and dogs are the same "kind," to you?
Plus, of course, your use of the word "kind" is telling of your creationism. Not even IDists use "kind" (unless, of course, they're speaking to fundamentalists).
Oh, you also wrote:| The "huge pile" of evidence is lacking under examination just as this small example is. |
That's quite a claim you've made there. Why don't you demonstrate it for us? Start by showing that changes in allele proportion within a population do not happen. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/14/2007 : 11:31:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
I didn't, science did:
| This little animal (10-20" at the shoulder) looked nothing at all like a horse. It had a "doggish" look with an arched back, short neck, short snout, short legs, and long tail. |
|
Looks like science doesn't call a horse a dog, either. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 07/14/2007 : 11:34:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Also sprach Jerome: | Hyracotherium: This seems to be a dog. Naming it "dawn horse" does not make it a horse. |
And that's your scientific opinion, Dr. Gnome?
Calling it a horse "a dog" does not make you appear less of an idiot.
|
I didn't, science did:
| This little animal (10-20" at the shoulder) looked nothing at all like a horse. It had a "doggish" look with an arched back, short neck, short snout, short legs, and long tail. |
(from Filthys link)
|
You said "it seems to be a dog" which is vastly different than saying "it had a 'doggish' look". How dishonest of you! But not surprising. Of course, I think you are just having fun with everyone here. Quite mature. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 07/14/2007 : 11:36:51 [Permalink]
|
Define "kind."
|
"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!
|
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/14/2007 : 11:38:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
I didn't, science did:
| This little animal (10-20" at the shoulder) looked nothing at all like a horse. It had a "doggish" look with an arched back, short neck, short snout, short legs, and long tail. |
|
Looks like science doesn't call a horse a dog, either.
|
So, when they say the "dog-like" animal that looks nothing like a horse is a horse, you are feeling OK about this?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/14/2007 : 11:41:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
So, when they say the "dog-like" animal that looks nothing like a horse is a horse, you are feeling OK about this? |
Where do they say that it's a horse?
What's the definition of "kind?"
Since when are Hyracotherium and Equus burchelli the same species? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/14/2007 : 11:42:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by pleco
You said "it seems to be a dog" which is vastly different than saying "it had a 'doggish' look". How dishonest of you! But not surprising. Of course, I think you are just having fun with everyone here. Quite mature.
|
These statements are relating the same idea.
It had a doggish look.
It seems like a dog.
Please explain how these statements are "vastly different".
Edit:spelling |
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
| Edited by - JEROME DA GNOME on 07/14/2007 11:44:39 |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 07/14/2007 : 11:47:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by pleco
You said "it seems to be a dog" which is vastly different than saying "it had a 'doggish' look". How dishonest of you! But not surprising. Of course, I think you are just having fun with everyone here. Quite mature.
|
These statements are relating the same idea.
It had a doggish look.
It seems like a dog.
Please explain how these statements are "vastly different".
|
Changing what you said will not fool anybody. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/14/2007 : 11:47:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
So, when they say the "dog-like" animal that looks nothing like a horse is a horse, you are feeling OK about this? |
Where do they say that it's a horse?
What's the definition of "kind?"
Since when are Hyracotherium and Equus burchelli the same species?
|
Read the links for your answers.(hint I quoted it)
Kind:a group united by common traits (Websters)
Who said they were?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 07/14/2007 : 11:53:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by pleco
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by pleco
You said "it seems to be a dog" which is vastly different than saying "it had a 'doggish' look". How dishonest of you! But not surprising. Of course, I think you are just having fun with everyone here. Quite mature.
|
These statements are relating the same idea.
It had a doggish look.
It seems like a dog.
Please explain how these statements are "vastly different".
|
Changing what you said will not fool anybody.
|
Now thats funny!
No answer.
You are not skeptical at all, you believe what you have been told by the high priest and will not succumb to heresy.
How are these statements "vastly different"?
It had a doggish look.
It seems like a dog.
It seems to be a dog.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/14/2007 : 11:56:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Read the links for your answers.(hint I quoted it) |
I don't see anyone quotes stating "Hyracotherium was a horse."| Kind:a group united by common traits (Websters) |
By that definition, all life on Earth is the same "kind," because it's all united by common traits (which you've quoted elsewhere). As such, arguing that evolution didn't happen because the horse's ancestors are the same "kind" as a modern horse is to do nothing less than state your ignorance of evolutionary theory, Jerome.
Actually, by that definition humans and the Large Magellanic Cloud are the same "kind," because they share traits like being made up of matter, being larger than a breadbox, etc.
Why don't you define the traits that make "horse kind" different from "dog kind" - the traits that the two groups do not share?You said they were the same species when you said, "these differences are within the species." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 07/14/2007 : 12:06:06 [Permalink]
|
"Kind" as it is too commonly used, is nothing but a cheap, creationist cop-out.
Sugar it off, Jerome. does it describe the species level, or genera, family, order, or what?
Did you find my latest series of fossils interesting?
|
"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!
|
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/14/2007 : 12:09:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Read the links for your answers.(hint I quoted it) |
I don't see anyone quotes stating "Hyracotherium was a horse." |
| The first equid was Hyracotherium, a small forest animal of the early Eocene. This little animal (10-20" at the shoulder) looked nothing at all like a horse. It had a "doggish" look with an arched back, short neck, short snout, short legs, and long tail. It browsed on fruit and fairly soft foliage, and probably scampered from thicket to thicket like a modern muntjac deer, only stupider, slower, and not as agile. This famous little equid was once known by the lovely name "Eohippus", meaning "dawn horse". |
I guess you did not look very hard at the information.(first paragraph )
The scientific name was dawn horse
 |
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Evolution caught in the act!
