Total Posts:72|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Transitional Species

Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 2:19:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
https://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Oh yeah... and don't forget the Walking Catfish

http://en.wikipedia.org...
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 2:19:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
What was that about there being no transitional fossils?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 2:25:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 2:33:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Transitional fossil" is a relative term.

If, in a million years, some future species of homonid were to pick up a fossilized version of your body, they'd call you a "transitional fossil" between homo erectus and homo [evolved specie].

Our common usage stems from taking organisms we see today and considering those to be the "end point" of whatever transition we're making.

But today's cats are tomorrow's transitional fossil. All depends on what you're studying.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 2:34:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
That said, under the rubric of "transitions leading to present day organisms" then I do agree that we have quite a few transitional fossils.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 3:13:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 2:33:55 PM, Wnope wrote:
"Transitional fossil" is a relative term.

If, in a million years, some future species of homonid were to pick up a fossilized version of your body, they'd call you a "transitional fossil" between homo erectus and homo [evolved specie].

Our common usage stems from taking organisms we see today and considering those to be the "end point" of whatever transition we're making.

But today's cats are tomorrow's transitional fossil. All depends on what you're studying.

Excellent point.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 3:14:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 3:08:03 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
Under religion section, we understand scriptures ,not fossils of extinct species!!

Correct. You don't understand fossils, leading to your fallacious opinions on science.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Bullish
Posts: 3,527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 3:45:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 2:19:40 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
What was that about there being no transitional fossils?

Don't worry about it. Their eyes are trained to cover themselves whenever they see these things. To them, "It never happened".
0x5f3759df
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 4:09:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 3:45:26 PM, Bullish wrote:
At 5/20/2013 2:19:40 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
What was that about there being no transitional fossils?

Don't worry about it. Their eyes are trained to cover themselves whenever they see these things. To them, "It never happened".

Oh... the irony.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Bullish
Posts: 3,527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 4:23:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 4:09:41 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/20/2013 3:45:26 PM, Bullish wrote:
At 5/20/2013 2:19:40 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
What was that about there being no transitional fossils?

Don't worry about it. Their eyes are trained to cover themselves whenever they see these things. To them, "It never happened".

Oh... the irony.

You're making me feel insecure...
0x5f3759df
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 4:25:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 4:23:54 PM, Bullish wrote:
At 5/20/2013 4:09:41 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/20/2013 3:45:26 PM, Bullish wrote:
At 5/20/2013 2:19:40 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
What was that about there being no transitional fossils?

Don't worry about it. Their eyes are trained to cover themselves whenever they see these things. To them, "It never happened".

Oh... the irony.

You're making me feel insecure...

The implication was the juxtaposition between your statement and your communist views. However, that is a discussion for another forum.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Sower4GS
Posts: 1,718
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 4:33:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If you really want to stir people up try posting this way. Encountering the Ruach Hakodesh (Holy Spirit) under a thread under the Category "Mediumship" on say oh, a spiritual forum or such. Of course you want to use a relevant topic besides rotting calcium. For fossil diggers, does vinegar work good? I really don't care, just showing how useful google is. Good for Scripture research too.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 4:34:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 4:33:23 PM, Sower4GS wrote:
If you really want to stir people up try posting this way. Encountering the Ruach Hakodesh (Holy Spirit) under a thread under the Category "Mediumship" on say oh, a spiritual forum or such. Of course you want to use a relevant topic besides rotting calcium. For fossil diggers, does vinegar work good? I really don't care, just showing how useful google is. Good for Scripture research too.

Learn English.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
errya
Posts: 140
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 11:22:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
http://creation.com...
http://creation.com...
http://creation.com...

Sorry, I couldn't find anything on Creation.com about the walking catfish, though this piece on mudskippers is relevant.

http://creation.com...

Even if these were transitional, you still need a few thousand more to convince me that the fossil record is anywhere near complete :)
The Most Noble Lord Horatio Nelson, Viscount and Baron Nelson, of the Nile and of Burnham Thorpe in the County of Norfolk, Baron Nelson of the Nile and of Hilborough in the said County, Knight of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Vice Admiral of the White Squadron of the Fleet, Commander in Chief of his Majesty's Ships and Vessels in the Mediterranean, Duke of Bront" in the Kingdom of Sicily, Knight Grand Cross of the Sicilian Order of St Ferdinand and of Merit, Member of the Ottoman Ord...
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 1:22:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 11:22:38 PM, errya wrote:
http://creation.com...
http://creation.com...
http://creation.com...

Sorry, I couldn't find anything on Creation.com about the walking catfish, though this piece on mudskippers is relevant.

http://creation.com...

Even if these were transitional, you still need a few thousand more to convince me that the fossil record is anywhere near complete :)

The fossil record may not be complete, but we have found enough fossils to show a clear evolutionary progression of forms throughout earth's history. Most of the attacks on fossil science made by creationists lie on bad arguments. Let us first go over the article about archy.

This article is poorly researched. For example it claims that evolutionists claim that feathers evolved from scales. While evolutionists used to believe this, scientists have found that feathers and scales are fundamentally different structures. Evolutionists think that feathers are evolutionary novelties.

The article then claims that scientists claim that archy is a true bird. While archy is classified in aves, this is only for classification convenience and archy contains many reptilian characteristics.

The article claims that archeopterix was not the only fossil bird with teeth. What we find is that there are other transitional bird fossils that are younger than archy and older than modern birds that do have teeth. These only further support evolution showing the evolutionary progression from reptile to bird. No modern bird has teeth, but archy and many transitional birds do have teeth.

The article does not mention that archy has arms that are far more reptilian than birdlike, and had chest bones that are more similar to reptiles than to birds.

Here is archy:
http://www.utexas.edu...
Here is a bird:
http://www.biology-resources.com...
Here is a reptile skeleton:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...

It should be immediately obvious that archy looks a lot more like a reptile.
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 2:02:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 3:14:35 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/20/2013 3:08:03 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
Under religion section, we understand scriptures ,not fossils of extinct species!!

Correct. You don't understand fossils, leading to your fallacious opinions on science.

No I really mean you and your extinct species should line up in the science forum not this !!
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 2:57:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 2:02:51 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 5/20/2013 3:14:35 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/20/2013 3:08:03 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
Under religion section, we understand scriptures ,not fossils of extinct species!!

Correct. You don't understand fossils, leading to your fallacious opinions on science.

No I really mean you and your extinct species should line up in the science forum not this !!

Well we are debating creationism which is at its base religious.
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 3:03:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 2:57:08 AM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 5/21/2013 2:02:51 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 5/20/2013 3:14:35 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/20/2013 3:08:03 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
Under religion section, we understand scriptures ,not fossils of extinct species!!

Correct. You don't understand fossils, leading to your fallacious opinions on science.

No I really mean you and your extinct species should line up in the science forum not this !!

Well we are debating creationism which is at its base religious.

It's a scientific theory! parallel to evolutionism!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 3:15:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 3:03:00 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 5/21/2013 2:57:08 AM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 5/21/2013 2:02:51 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 5/20/2013 3:14:35 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/20/2013 3:08:03 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
Under religion section, we understand scriptures ,not fossils of extinct species!!

Correct. You don't understand fossils, leading to your fallacious opinions on science.

No I really mean you and your extinct species should line up in the science forum not this !!

Well we are debating creationism which is at its base religious.

It's a scientific theory! parallel to evolutionism!

No, it really isn't. Not any more than the theory of "automobile fairyism" is parallel to the "theory of the internal combustion engine".
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 3:19:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 3:15:18 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/21/2013 3:03:00 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 5/21/2013 2:57:08 AM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 5/21/2013 2:02:51 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 5/20/2013 3:14:35 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/20/2013 3:08:03 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
Under religion section, we understand scriptures ,not fossils of extinct species!!

Correct. You don't understand fossils, leading to your fallacious opinions on science.

No I really mean you and your extinct species should line up in the science forum not this !!

Well we are debating creationism which is at its base religious.

It's a scientific theory! parallel to evolutionism!

No, it really isn't. Not any more than the theory of "automobile fairyism" is parallel to the "theory of the internal combustion engine".

You mean that there is no theory that counters Common Descent , and is coherent with creationism !!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 3:23:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 3:19:29 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 5/21/2013 3:15:18 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/21/2013 3:03:00 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 5/21/2013 2:57:08 AM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 5/21/2013 2:02:51 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 5/20/2013 3:14:35 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/20/2013 3:08:03 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
Under religion section, we understand scriptures ,not fossils of extinct species!!

Correct. You don't understand fossils, leading to your fallacious opinions on science.

No I really mean you and your extinct species should line up in the science forum not this !!

Well we are debating creationism which is at its base religious.

It's a scientific theory! parallel to evolutionism!

No, it really isn't. Not any more than the theory of "automobile fairyism" is parallel to the "theory of the internal combustion engine".

You mean that there is no theory that counters Common Descent , and is coherent with creationism !!

Creationism is not a scientific theory. There is no theory on the table right now which uses actual science which counters evolution. The Theory of CD is our current "best explanation" based on the evidence we have, but I do note your shifting of terms.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 8:00:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 2:19:40 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
What was that about there being no transitional fossils?

Fossils are the remains of dead biotics. That's the scientific data. There is no 'fossil record' buried in the ground, just the remains of dead stuff.

As I like to use for illustration, you could take pictures of cars from the model-T up to the Jaguar and Ford F-250 and arrange a tree of motorized inheritance. But if you thought such a tree was evidence of Darwinian automobile evolution, you'd be badly wrong. It would be, in fact, a record of intelligent design.

There's mountains of evidence for evolution, that is true. The problem is that all the evidence also admits to a totally different interpretation. And all the obvious information, the stuff you don't need a degree to see, that fairly shouts design. Of course, the smallest data, microbiology, that also shouts design. Evolution of the gaps, that's kind of what the theory is, and I think science is actually closing in on it. I don't think the theory as we know it will survive another 100 years.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 8:07:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 3:23:11 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/21/2013 3:19:29 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 5/21/2013 3:15:18 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/21/2013 3:03:00 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 5/21/2013 2:57:08 AM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 5/21/2013 2:02:51 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 5/20/2013 3:14:35 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/20/2013 3:08:03 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
Under religion section, we understand scriptures ,not fossils of extinct species!!

Correct. You don't understand fossils, leading to your fallacious opinions on science.

No I really mean you and your extinct species should line up in the science forum not this !!

Well we are debating creationism which is at its base religious.

It's a scientific theory! parallel to evolutionism!

No, it really isn't. Not any more than the theory of "automobile fairyism" is parallel to the "theory of the internal combustion engine".

You mean that there is no theory that counters Common Descent , and is coherent with creationism !!

Creationism is not a scientific theory. There is no theory on the table right now which uses actual science which counters evolution. The Theory of CD is our current "best explanation" based on the evidence we have, but I do note your shifting of terms.

No, it's the only acceptable one. Look, one of the problems with evolution is, even to the extent it's true, it's useless. What can you do with the fact that a random mutation is going to happen? The useful model is that of life being a highly adaptable and fault tolerant system. The model of design lets us say "Why does this work this way?" and "How can we fix it?" or "How can we learn from this?". And, of course, evolutionists themselves use the design model all the time.
This space for rent.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 8:11:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 8:00:24 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/20/2013 2:19:40 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
What was that about there being no transitional fossils?

Fossils are the remains of dead biotics. That's the scientific data. There is no 'fossil record' buried in the ground, just the remains of dead stuff.

That's what the fossil record is, bud.

As I like to use for illustration, you could take pictures of cars from the model-T up to the Jaguar and Ford F-250 and arrange a tree of motorized inheritance. But if you thought such a tree was evidence of Darwinian automobile evolution, you'd be badly wrong. It would be, in fact, a record of intelligent design.

This is a really really really bad analogy.

There's mountains of evidence for evolution, that is true. The problem is that all the evidence also admits to a totally different interpretation. And all the obvious information, the stuff you don't need a degree to see, that fairly shouts design. Of course, the smallest data, microbiology, that also shouts design. Evolution of the gaps, that's kind of what the theory is, and I think science is actually closing in on it. I don't think the theory as we know it will survive another 100 years.

Evolution is always evolving (pardon the pun), so it's not a static theory. There are multiple approaches within evolution that have yet to be proven. But to state that evolution in its entirety will fade away just shows how retarded you are.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 8:12:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 8:07:05 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/21/2013 3:23:11 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/21/2013 3:19:29 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 5/21/2013 3:15:18 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/21/2013 3:03:00 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 5/21/2013 2:57:08 AM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 5/21/2013 2:02:51 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 5/20/2013 3:14:35 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/20/2013 3:08:03 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
Under religion section, we understand scriptures ,not fossils of extinct species!!

Correct. You don't understand fossils, leading to your fallacious opinions on science.

No I really mean you and your extinct species should line up in the science forum not this !!

Well we are debating creationism which is at its base religious.

It's a scientific theory! parallel to evolutionism!

No, it really isn't. Not any more than the theory of "automobile fairyism" is parallel to the "theory of the internal combustion engine".

You mean that there is no theory that counters Common Descent , and is coherent with creationism !!

Creationism is not a scientific theory. There is no theory on the table right now which uses actual science which counters evolution. The Theory of CD is our current "best explanation" based on the evidence we have, but I do note your shifting of terms.

No, it's the only acceptable one. Look, one of the problems with evolution is, even to the extent it's true, it's useless. What can you do with the fact that a random mutation is going to happen? The useful model is that of life being a highly adaptable and fault tolerant system. The model of design lets us say "Why does this work this way?" and "How can we fix it?" or "How can we learn from this?". And, of course, evolutionists themselves use the design model all the time.

So something is true if it's useful to use? I hereby pronounce AIDS, cancer, and earthquakes to be not true!
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
JonMilne
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 10:06:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 8:07:05 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/21/2013 3:23:11 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/21/2013 3:19:29 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 5/21/2013 3:15:18 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/21/2013 3:03:00 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 5/21/2013 2:57:08 AM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 5/21/2013 2:02:51 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 5/20/2013 3:14:35 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/20/2013 3:08:03 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
Under religion section, we understand scriptures ,not fossils of extinct species!!

Correct. You don't understand fossils, leading to your fallacious opinions on science.

No I really mean you and your extinct species should line up in the science forum not this !!

Well we are debating creationism which is at its base religious.

It's a scientific theory! parallel to evolutionism!

No, it really isn't. Not any more than the theory of "automobile fairyism" is parallel to the "theory of the internal combustion engine".

You mean that there is no theory that counters Common Descent , and is coherent with creationism !!

Creationism is not a scientific theory. There is no theory on the table right now which uses actual science which counters evolution. The Theory of CD is our current "best explanation" based on the evidence we have, but I do note your shifting of terms.

No, it's the only acceptable one. Look, one of the problems with evolution is, even to the extent it's true, it's useless. What can you do with the fact that a random mutation is going to happen? The useful model is that of life being a highly adaptable and fault tolerant system. The model of design lets us say "Why does this work this way?" and "How can we fix it?" or "How can we learn from this?". And, of course, evolutionists themselves use the design model all the time.

You're a terrible liar, buddy. It's already been demonstrated to you how evolution is useful. Here are the links I've shown you before: http://www.talkorigins.org... and http://evolution.berkeley.edu.... I'll even quote from the first link for you:

"-Bioinformatics, a multi-billion-dollar industry, consists largely of the comparison of genetic sequences. Descent with modification is one of its most basic assumptions.
-Diseases and pests evolve resistance to the drugs and pesticides we use against them. Evolutionary theory is used in the field of resistance management in both medicine and agriculture (Bull and Wichman 2001).
-Evolutionary theory is used to manage fisheries for greater yields (Conover and Munch 2002).
-Artificial selection has been used since prehistory, but it has become much more efficient with the addition of quantitative trait locus mapping.
-Knowledge of the evolution of parasite virulence in human populations can help guide public health policy (Galvani 2003).
-Sex allocation theory, based on evolution theory, was used to predict conditions under which the highly endangered kakapo bird would produce more female offspring, which retrieved it from the brink of extinction (Sutherland 2002).


Also check out this really great article about how it helps out with agriculture: http://evolution.berkeley.edu..., and also this one about conservation strategies: http://evolution.berkeley.edu... and of course this one about how it helps with medicine and diseases: http://evolution.berkeley.edu... (Just in case you didn't know, each of these articles have a "next" button in the bottom right hand corner so you can get to the next part of the article)
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 10:33:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 10:06:05 AM, JonMilne wrote:
At 5/21/2013 8:07:05 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/21/2013 3:23:11 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/21/2013 3:19:29 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 5/21/2013 3:15:18 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/21/2013 3:03:00 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 5/21/2013 2:57:08 AM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 5/21/2013 2:02:51 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 5/20/2013 3:14:35 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/20/2013 3:08:03 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
Under religion section, we understand scriptures ,not fossils of extinct species!!

Correct. You don't understand fossils, leading to your fallacious opinions on science.

No I really mean you and your extinct species should line up in the science forum not this !!

Well we are debating creationism which is at its base religious.

It's a scientific theory! parallel to evolutionism!

No, it really isn't. Not any more than the theory of "automobile fairyism" is parallel to the "theory of the internal combustion engine".

You mean that there is no theory that counters Common Descent , and is coherent with creationism !!

Creationism is not a scientific theory. There is no theory on the table right now which uses actual science which counters evolution. The Theory of CD is our current "best explanation" based on the evidence we have, but I do note your shifting of terms.

No, it's the only acceptable one. Look, one of the problems with evolution is, even to the extent it's true, it's useless. What can you do with the fact that a random mutation is going to happen? The useful model is that of life being a highly adaptable and fault tolerant system. The model of design lets us say "Why does this work this way?" and "How can we fix it?" or "How can we learn from this?". And, of course, evolutionists themselves use the design model all the time.

You're a terrible liar, buddy.

I'm not going to put up with you calling me a liar. So, I pretty much said adios on the other thread, but one last post to you:

It's already been demonstrated to you how evolution is useful. Here are the links I've shown you before: http://www.talkorigins.org... and http://evolution.berkeley.edu.... I'll even quote from the first link for you:

"-Bioinformatics, a multi-billion-dollar industry, consists largely of the comparison of genetic sequences. Descent with modification is one of its most basic assumptions.

You can't compare genetic sequences without evolution? Obviously this requires genetics, not Darwinian evolution.

-Diseases and pests evolve resistance to the drugs and pesticides we use against them. Evolutionary theory is used in the field of resistance management in both medicine and agriculture (Bull and Wichman 2001).

No, and this is so bogus. Antibiotics were discovered by accident, and the state of the art has largely been trial and error. Evolution doesn't help us design antibiotics for tomorrows random mutation, does it? In fact, it's the design model, finding better, deliberate ways to interfere with unwanted reproduction that is producing the next generation of antibiotics.

-Evolutionary theory is used to manage fisheries for greater yields (Conover and Munch 2002).
-Artificial selection has been used since prehistory, but it has become much more efficient with the addition of quantitative trait locus mapping.

I don't know about these two, but they sound more like genetics. Genetics is regularly conflated with evolution.

-Knowledge of the evolution of parasite virulence in human populations can help guide public health policy (Galvani 2003).

Sounds like genetics and statistics to me.

-Sex allocation theory, based on evolution theory, was used to predict conditions under which the highly endangered kakapo bird would produce more female offspring, which retrieved it from the brink of extinction (Sutherland 2002).


Sounds like genetics and statistics to me. I'm sure, your self satisfaction preventing you from knowing your limits, that you don't realize how you don't grasp the essential problem of predicting truly random mutations, those changes not predictable from the genome, i.e. those changes that are alleged to produce true evolution.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 10:36:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 8:12:45 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/21/2013 8:07:05 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/21/2013 3:23:11 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/21/2013 3:19:29 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 5/21/2013 3:15:18 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/21/2013 3:03:00 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 5/21/2013 2:57:08 AM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 5/21/2013 2:02:51 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 5/20/2013 3:14:35 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/20/2013 3:08:03 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
Under religion section, we understand scriptures ,not fossils of extinct species!!

Correct. You don't understand fossils, leading to your fallacious opinions on science.

No I really mean you and your extinct species should line up in the science forum not this !!

Well we are debating creationism which is at its base religious.

It's a scientific theory! parallel to evolutionism!

No, it really isn't. Not any more than the theory of "automobile fairyism" is parallel to the "theory of the internal combustion engine".

You mean that there is no theory that counters Common Descent , and is coherent with creationism !!

Creationism is not a scientific theory. There is no theory on the table right now which uses actual science which counters evolution. The Theory of CD is our current "best explanation" based on the evidence we have, but I do note your shifting of terms.

No, it's the only acceptable one. Look, one of the problems with evolution is, even to the extent it's true, it's useless. What can you do with the fact that a random mutation is going to happen? The useful model is that of life being a highly adaptable and fault tolerant system. The model of design lets us say "Why does this work this way?" and "How can we fix it?" or "How can we learn from this?". And, of course, evolutionists themselves use the design model all the time.

So something is true if it's useful to use? I hereby pronounce AIDS, cancer, and earthquakes to be not true!

Do you think atoms are little round balls held together with sticks? Science is all about models, math being the most useful of all. People who really understand science don't talk much about 'truth', that's more of a metaphysical concept.
This space for rent.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 11:49:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 3:03:00 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 5/21/2013 2:57:08 AM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 5/21/2013 2:02:51 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 5/20/2013 3:14:35 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/20/2013 3:08:03 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
Under religion section, we understand scriptures ,not fossils of extinct species!!

Correct. You don't understand fossils, leading to your fallacious opinions on science.

No I really mean you and your extinct species should line up in the science forum not this !!

Well we are debating creationism which is at its base religious.

It's a scientific theory! parallel to evolutionism!

Scientific theories have mountains of evidence. Creationism doesn't.