|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
 Posted - 07/14/2007 : 12:10:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
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.
|
Sigh...I do this not for you, but for anyone else who reads. I suspect though that everyone else knows the difference if they have had remedial English.
doggish look - possesses some outward physical traits that a dog has.
seems to be a dog - indicates that it could be a dog (noun) - not just sharing some outward appearance.
seems like a dog - could be either one of the above, depends on context - which is why you changed to that in the first place once you got called on it. You should have used this phrase if you had been thinking about it.
But since I think you are just playing games.... |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
 |
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 07/14/2007 : 12:13:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
"Kind" as it is too commonly used, is nothing but a cheap, creationist cop-out.
Off the cuff:How about the ability to breed and produce offspring. By the way when offspring are infertile this would be the extent of the variety within the "kind".
Did you find my latest series of fossils interesting?
Yes, I almost always find your links interesting.
|
|
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 : 12:13:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
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
|
The keyword here is "was'" Jerome. "Eohippus" hasn't been used for it in decades. "Dawn Horse" simply refers to certain equine features of the skeleton, notably the legs and teeth.
|
"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 : 12:16:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
You said they were the same species when you said, "these differences are within the species."
|
I was responding to the butterfly example filthy presented.
|
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 : 12:18:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
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. |
This is a dumb argument and you know it. Who are you trying to fool; some random lurker?
|
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 : 12:19:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by Dave W.
You said they were the same species when you said, "these differences are within the species."
|
I was responding to the butterfly example filthy presented.
|
What butterfly example? I don't recall referencing butterflies. But I can probably come up with something if you insist.
|
"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!
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/14/2007 : 12:22:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
| 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 ) |
I guess because Australopithecus was a hominid, you think that means that it was a modern human? Calling something an equid does not make it an Equus.| The scientific name was dawn horse |
Yes, but what's in a name? There's a bird called a titmouse, but by your logic, we must think that it's both a tit and a mouse. Am I to think that because there's a louse with the scientific name of Strigiphilus garylarsoni we must conclude that it is Gary Larson? |
- 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 : 12:27:51 [Permalink]
|
"All that glitters is not gold." All that look like dogs are not dogs, nor even canines.
|
"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 12:28:51 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/14/2007 : 12:28:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by Dave W.
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. |
This is a dumb argument and you know it. Who are you trying to fool; some random lurker? |
You were asked to define "kind," and you rejected the context in which the question was asked so you could quote the dictionary and thereby evade answering the question.
And you've also refused to answer the follow-up question: why don't you tell us some of the differences between "dog kind" and "horse kind?" |
- 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 : 12:29:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by pleco
Sigh...I do this not for you, but for anyone else who reads. I suspect though that everyone else knows the difference if they have had remedial English.
doggish look - possesses some outward physical traits that a dog has.
seems to be a dog - indicates that it could be a dog (noun) - not just sharing some outward appearance.
seems like a dog - could be either one of the above, depends on context - which is why you changed to that in the first place once you got called on it. You should have used this phrase if you had been thinking about it.
But since I think you are just playing games....
|
I will help you with some "remedial English"; because you said "vastly different".
Vast: very great in size, amount, degree, intensity, or especially in extent or range
Different: partly or totally unlike in nature, form, or quality
Thanks to Websters.
So, would you like to explain how those three statements are very greatly unlike each other?
Or, shall you continue to dig the whole deeper?
|
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 : 12:33:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by Dave W.
You said they were the same species when you said, "these differences are within the species."
|
I was responding to the butterfly example filthy presented.
|
What butterfly example? I don't recall referencing butterflies. But I can probably come up with something if you insist.
|
| Mutations create variations in the gene pool, and the less favorable (or deleterious) mutations are removed from the gene pool by natural selection, while more favorable (beneficial or advantageous) ones tend to accumulate, resulting in evolutionary change. For example, a butterfly may develop offspring with a new mutation caused say by ultraviolet light from the sun. In most cases, this mutation is not good, since obviously there was no 'purpose' for such change at the molecular level. However, sometimes a mutation may change the butterfly's color, making it harder for predators to see it; this is an advantage and the chances of this butterfly surviving and producing its own offspring are a little better, and over time the number of butterflies with this mutation may form a large percentage of the species. Neutral mutations are defined as mutations whose effects do not influence the fitness of either the species or the individuals who make up the species. These can accumulate over time due to genetic drift. The overwhelming majority of mutations have no significant effect, since DNA repair is able to mend most changes before they become permanent mutations, and many organisms have mechanisms for eliminating otherwise permanently mutated somatic cells. |
|
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 |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 07/14/2007 : 12:41:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
So, would you like to explain how those three statements are very greatly unlike each other?
Or, shall you continue to dig the whole[sic] deeper?
|
Already explained, and the hole has been dug deep enough. |
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 : 12:44:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by filthy
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by Dave W.
You said they were the same species when you said, "these differences are within the species."
|
I was responding to the butterfly example filthy presented.
|
What butterfly example? I don't recall referencing butterflies. But I can probably come up with something if you insist.
|
| Mutations create variations in the gene pool, and the less favorable (or deleterious) mutations are removed from the gene pool by natural selection, while more favorable (beneficial or advantageous) ones tend to accumulate, resulting in evolutionary change. For example, a butterfly may develop offspring with a new mutation caused say by ultraviolet light from the sun. In most cases, this mutation is not good, since obviously there was no 'purpose' for such change at the molecular level. However, sometimes a mutation may change the butterfly's color, making it harder for predators to see it; this is an advantage and the chances of this butterfly surviving and producing its own offspring are a little better, and over time the number of butterflies with this mutation may form a large percentage of the species. Neutral mutations are defined as mutations whose effects do not influence the fitness of either the species or the individuals who make up the species. These can accumulate over time due to genetic drift. The overwhelming majority of mutations have no significant effect, since DNA repair is able to mend most changes before they become permanent mutations, and many organisms have mechanisms for eliminating otherwise permanently mutated somatic cells. |
|
Ah yes, I see. That's indeed one of mine, but you have it out of context. I was referencing mutations, not butterflies. "Butterflies" were used an an example of some how some mutations work. The author could have used fruit flies, Norway rats or domestic chickens, it would be the same.
|
"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 : 13:02:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by pleco
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
So, would you like to explain how those three statements are very greatly unlike each other?
Or, shall you continue to dig the whole[sic] deeper?
|
Already explained, and the hole has been dug deep enough.
|
Ahh, but I meant whole. English is an extremely versatile language. But having taken remedial English you would know that!
 |
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 : 13:09:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
And you've also refused to answer the follow-up question: why don't you tell us some of the differences between "dog kind" and "horse kind?"
|
Can they breed and produce offspring?
No?
Different "kinds"!
You keep trying to make it hard; is this to confuse others?
|
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!
