|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 07/14/2007 : 13:10:40 [Permalink]
|
Well, I fear I must abandon this little ron-d'lay for the nonce. Amazon.com has promised to have Harry Potter #7 on my doorstep on the 21st, and, to cleanse the pallet in anticipation of it, I am re-reading numbers 1 through 6. I'm 1/2 way through #5, and am falling a little behind.
Later...
|
"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 13:11:59 |
 |
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 07/14/2007 : 14:33:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
Well, I fear I must abandon this little ron-d'lay for the nonce. Amazon.com has promised to have Harry Potter #7 on my doorstep on the 21st, and, to cleanse the pallet in anticipation of it, I am re-reading numbers 1 through 6. I'm 1/2 way through #5, and am falling a little behind.
Later...
|
As I am always looking for new words:
Could you explain both:
"ron-d'lay"
"nonce" (I hope you do not mean this)
Thanks in advance!
Enjoy your reading!
 |
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 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
 Posted - 07/14/2007 : 14:48:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Jerome:
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. |
A mouse with big breasts? |
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. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 07/14/2007 : 15:09:50 [Permalink]
|
Thanks, what a great phrase!
|
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 : 16:22:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by filthy
Well, I fear I must abandon this little ron-d'lay for the nonce. Amazon.com has promised to have Harry Potter #7 on my doorstep on the 21st, and, to cleanse the pallet in anticipation of it, I am re-reading numbers 1 through 6. I'm 1/2 way through #5, and am falling a little behind.
Later...
|
As I am always looking for new words:
Could you explain both:
"ron-d'lay"
"nonce" (I hope you do not mean this)
Thanks in advance!
Enjoy your reading!
|
"Ron d'lay" is a French euphenism for "song & dance." I may have the spelling incorrect.
"Nonce," among other meanings, evidently, is an English euphemism for: " for the moment." It used to be used a lot in contemporary writing, but you don't see it much any more.
I'm taking a brief Harry break.
|
"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!
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 07/14/2007 : 19:37:33 [Permalink]
|
I, for one, see just where Jerome is leading us. He's taken my advice. If he can call a horse ancestor "a dog," then he can call this Devonian fossil . . .
. . . "a bunny."
Surely, they're the same "kind".
BTW, Jerome, if anyone thought you were other than the desperate fundy Creationist apologist you are, even after you literally said "Goddidit," they would know what you are one from your use of "kind" as though it had some biological meaning.
Nobody except Creationists uses "kind" to describe species, genera, or other groupings of life. They use it because it's 1) Biblical, and 2) since it's undefined, it can be used to confuse, as when they do not want to be pinned down. It's a liar's term, from a book of lies. We again note your false flag operation here.
Wiki says of "kind": | Kind is also used as a pseudoscientific term by some creationists, initially as a Biblically-derived approximate synonym for species, then later as a proposed taxon insisted to be closed under micromutation, or insisted to have not been directly proven not to be so closed. Its usage in any of these senses is criticized by mainstream biologists as being undefined or, at best, too vaguely defined, allowing creationists to "shift the target", and it has been suggested the de facto definition of a kind is a taxon slightly larger than one already proven to not be closed under micromutation. On the other hand, it has also been suggested that some proposed examples of kinds are in fact ones already demonstrated not to be subject to such closure. Attempts to rebut these criticisms have yet to be publicised. |
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 07/14/2007 19:46:09 |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/14/2007 : 20:00:20 [Permalink]
|
Halfmooner, are you ready to admit the article does not represent "evolution caught in the act"?
Lets talk about the topic.
|
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 |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 07/14/2007 : 20:27:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Halfmooner, are you ready to admit the article does not represent "evolution caught in the act"?
Lets talk about the topic.
|
No. What happened to the butterflies seems indeed to be evidence of swift natural selection in action. You've presented no evidence to the contrary.
Your trolling is what brought this thread so far from the original topic, as is so often the case.
I find it interesting that only now, when you've been cornered, do you piously assert that you want to go back to the OP. Now that you've again slipped up and exposed yourself by using the "kind" word, are you ready to admit you are a fundy Creationist troll?
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/14/2007 : 20:48:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Can they breed and produce offspring?
No?
Different "kinds"!
You keep trying to make it hard; is this to confuse others? |
No, evolutionary biology is hard. Nature isn't easy.
So, you are now claiming that "kinds" refers to the most-basic sort of biological species definition, but without even so much as a hint of a caveat about sterile offspring. Okay.
So say you've got a group of salamanders living at the base of a mountain. This would be "Group A." A few miles counterclockwise around the base of the mountain is another population of salamanders, "Group B," which is slightly morphologically different, but can still interbreed with Group A. Another few miles counterclockwise, we encounter yet another morphologically unique salamander, Group C, which can interbreed with group B. Another few miles, we find Group D, which can interbreed with Group C, and in another few miles (now getting close to Group A again), we find Group E, which can interbreed with Group D.
So, we've got Group A interbreeding with Group B; Group B interbreeding with groups A and C; Group C interbreeding with groups B and D; Group D interbreeding with groups C and E, and Group E interbreeding with Group D. But after much observation and labwork, we discover that Group A and Group E, while being able to mate successfully in the wild (they live right next to each other) and in captivity, never produce offspring.
So, A <-> B <-> C <-> D <-> E, but never A <-> E despite close proximity and successful physical mating.
Which groups represent different "kinds," Jerome? |
- 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 - 07/15/2007 : 02:13:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
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?
|
Culex pipiens and Culex molestus do not interbreed anymore. This means that there are two "kinds" of mosquitos living in London.
(Edited to put Latin names in italics) |
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 07/15/2007 02:17:36 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2007 : 02:39:33 [Permalink]
|
trollboy said:
Can they breed and produce offspring?
No?
Different "kinds"!
|
So, dogs and wolves are different "kinds" then? Because wolves won't breed with dogs in the wild.
And the London Subway mosquito, as already mentioned, won't interbreed with the surface species.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2007 : 06:00:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Halfmooner, are you ready to admit the article does not represent "evolution caught in the act"?
Lets talk about the topic.
|
"Evolution caught in the act" is mere hyperboyle and as such is meaningless. Were I to write a screed about armadillos, I might call it: 'Possum, on the Half Shell, and so what?
Evolution gets caught in the act, as it were, every day & all the time. The study of any species with a high population turnover, such as fruit flies, will see a great deal of it. Indeed, biology students are assigned these projects as a part of their training. They use wingless fruit flies and breed them for different eyes, legs, and so forth. And evidence for evolution can be seen by comparing extant species to their ancestors.
If you study the topic, you will see that this butterfly is not so out of the ordinary. It is, after all, a species with high, annual turnover, and one female carrying the right genes can lay a lot of eggs.
It would be at least as remarkable if the parasite killed off the species -- if it could. There is always parthenogenesis to consider.
|
"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 - 07/15/2007 : 07:42:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Halfmooner, are you ready to admit the article does not represent "evolution caught in the act"?
Lets talk about the topic.
|
No. What happened to the butterflies seems indeed to be evidence of swift natural selection in action. You've presented no evidence to the contrary.
Your trolling is what brought this thread so far from the original topic, as is so often the case.
I find it interesting that only now, when you've been cornered, do you piously assert that you want to go back to the OP. Now that you've again slipped up and exposed yourself by using the "kind" word, are you ready to admit you are a fundy Creationist troll?
|
Did you even read this?
I do not have enough information to state what caused the depletion of the males.
There certainly is not enough information to state that this bacteria is new to this butterfly and this bacteria caused the male population to drop to 1% and these male butterflies had a genetic mutation that counters this bacteria and this is an example of rapid evolution.
The bacteria we are talking about only kills the male sperm that are not already infected. It does not kill all males. This makes one think that this bacteria was not the cause of the initial decimation of the male population. If this were the case this parasitic bacteria would be killing itself by killing all the host males. |
The article is making a claim; there is nothing but speculation presented that, when looked into has more reasonable explanations.
I asked to move back on topic because you spelled out the (in your mind) the path I was trying to take the talk. You were wrong, another feeble attempt to think like me.
I defined the word a couple of times. I know the game by now. A definition is asked several times until the answer is given that allows the rote argument to be 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 - 07/15/2007 : 07:46:46 [Permalink]
|
This is great! My logic and presentation of information has debunked the "fast track" evolution.
All are only left with an argument over the definition and usage of a single word!
I guess all now admit the article is a misrepresented, faith based, propaganda piece.
 |
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!
