Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

Birds Evolved in 'Big Bang,' ...

Skepticalone
Posts: 6,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2014 8:08:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Birds Evolved in 'Big Bang,' New Family Tree Reveals.

The new findings show that Neoaves underwent a "Big Bang" of evolution, with many new species appearing within just a few million years of the time that most dinosaurs went extinct about 66 million years ago. Previous work had suggested a more gradual evolution of this group.


http://www.livescience.com...
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2014 4:44:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Woah. That's clearly an evidence for God and disproves evolution. One cambrian explosion was already impossible to explain by evolutionists, but TWO? Oh how the mighty have fallen! This is undoubtly our sweet lord baby jesus givin' a lesson in humility to those evilutionists!

....

I'm sorry, I did not want to give them the satisfaction of being the first to say that cr*ap :D
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2014 9:25:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/18/2014 4:44:43 AM, Otokage wrote:
Woah. That's clearly an evidence for God and disproves evolution. One cambrian explosion was already impossible to explain by evolutionists, but TWO? Oh how the mighty have fallen! This is undoubtly our sweet lord baby jesus givin' a lesson in humility to those evilutionists!




....

I'm sorry, I did not want to give them the satisfaction of being the first to say that cr*ap :D

LOL!
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2014 9:50:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/17/2014 8:08:10 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
Birds Evolved in 'Big Bang,' New Family Tree Reveals.

The new findings show that Neoaves underwent a "Big Bang" of evolution, with many new species appearing within just a few million years of the time that most dinosaurs went extinct about 66 million years ago. Previous work had suggested a more gradual evolution of this group.


http://www.livescience.com...

If the pre-written computer program says so then it must be true...*shakes head sarcastically*...I'm not really sure what value you think this has. It may indeed have some value in some context, disease physiology as a possible example, but if you want to use it as evidence, in a discussion of UCA, it is irrelevant. A scientist programs a computer with his a priori assumptions, plugs in some data about birds, and as expected, it spits out a family tree. So what??
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2014 10:07:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/18/2014 9:50:48 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 12/17/2014 8:08:10 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
Birds Evolved in 'Big Bang,' New Family Tree Reveals.

The new findings show that Neoaves underwent a "Big Bang" of evolution, with many new species appearing within just a few million years of the time that most dinosaurs went extinct about 66 million years ago. Previous work had suggested a more gradual evolution of this group.


http://www.livescience.com...

If the pre-written computer program says so then it must be true...*shakes head sarcastically*...I'm not really sure what value you think this has. It may indeed have some value in some context, disease physiology as a possible example, but if you want to use it as evidence, in a discussion of UCA, it is irrelevant. A scientist programs a computer with his a priori assumptions, plugs in some data about birds, and as expected, it spits out a family tree. So what??

It must be a conspiracy between 200 scientists over 4 years from 80 different institutions because you are incredulous at their results? Your objection is not based on evidence (it seems), and must be dismissed.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2014 10:28:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/18/2014 10:07:33 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/18/2014 9:50:48 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 12/17/2014 8:08:10 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
Birds Evolved in 'Big Bang,' New Family Tree Reveals.

The new findings show that Neoaves underwent a "Big Bang" of evolution, with many new species appearing within just a few million years of the time that most dinosaurs went extinct about 66 million years ago. Previous work had suggested a more gradual evolution of this group.


http://www.livescience.com...

If the pre-written computer program says so then it must be true...*shakes head sarcastically*...I'm not really sure what value you think this has. It may indeed have some value in some context, disease physiology as a possible example, but if you want to use it as evidence, in a discussion of UCA, it is irrelevant. A scientist programs a computer with his a priori assumptions, plugs in some data about birds, and as expected, it spits out a family tree. So what??

It must be a conspiracy between 200 scientists over 4 years from 80 different institutions because you are incredulous at their results? Your objection is not based on evidence (it seems), and must be dismissed.

I didn't reject it outright, and I even said that it might have some value, in the right context.

You haven't even said what you think it means to a discussion of UCA, so how can I argue or object without knowing what I'm objecting to. Tell me why you think this has value as evidence in a discussion with someone who is skeptical of the conclusion of UCA, then we can discuss it sensibly. For now you're just throwing out the normal allegations that evos make about dissenters, that we believe its a conspiracy theory, which is a false allegation.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2014 10:48:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/18/2014 4:44:43 AM, Otokage wrote:
Woah. That's clearly an evidence for God and disproves evolution. One cambrian explosion was already impossible to explain by evolutionists, but TWO? Oh how the mighty have fallen! This is undoubtly our sweet lord baby jesus givin' a lesson in humility to those evilutionists!




....

I'm sorry, I did not want to give them the satisfaction of being the first to say that cr*ap :D

https://www.youtube.com...
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2014 11:11:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/18/2014 10:28:33 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 12/18/2014 10:07:33 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/18/2014 9:50:48 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 12/17/2014 8:08:10 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
Birds Evolved in 'Big Bang,' New Family Tree Reveals.

The new findings show that Neoaves underwent a "Big Bang" of evolution, with many new species appearing within just a few million years of the time that most dinosaurs went extinct about 66 million years ago. Previous work had suggested a more gradual evolution of this group.


http://www.livescience.com...

If the pre-written computer program says so then it must be true...*shakes head sarcastically*...I'm not really sure what value you think this has. It may indeed have some value in some context, disease physiology as a possible example, but if you want to use it as evidence, in a discussion of UCA, it is irrelevant. A scientist programs a computer with his a priori assumptions, plugs in some data about birds, and as expected, it spits out a family tree. So what??

It must be a conspiracy between 200 scientists over 4 years from 80 different institutions because you are incredulous at their results? Your objection is not based on evidence (it seems), and must be dismissed.

I didn't reject it outright, and I even said that it might have some value, in the right context.

You haven't even said what you think it means to a discussion of UCA, so how can I argue or object without knowing what I'm objecting to. Tell me why you think this has value as evidence in a discussion with someone who is skeptical of the conclusion of UCA, then we can discuss it sensibly. For now you're just throwing out the normal allegations that evos make about dissenters, that we believe its a conspiracy theory, which is a false allegation.

I didn't say anything about UCA, you did. I posted this so I might glean some information from more knowledgeable users since I have not researched it at all (and most of it is probably over my head). Feel free to state objections related to the data. I'm not interested in objections to the methodology because it would require a conspiracy for success. I find that silly, and not worthy of further response.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2014 11:57:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/18/2014 11:11:41 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/18/2014 10:28:33 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 12/18/2014 10:07:33 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/18/2014 9:50:48 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 12/17/2014 8:08:10 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
Birds Evolved in 'Big Bang,' New Family Tree Reveals.

The new findings show that Neoaves underwent a "Big Bang" of evolution, with many new species appearing within just a few million years of the time that most dinosaurs went extinct about 66 million years ago. Previous work had suggested a more gradual evolution of this group.


http://www.livescience.com...

If the pre-written computer program says so then it must be true...*shakes head sarcastically*...I'm not really sure what value you think this has. It may indeed have some value in some context, disease physiology as a possible example, but if you want to use it as evidence, in a discussion of UCA, it is irrelevant. A scientist programs a computer with his a priori assumptions, plugs in some data about birds, and as expected, it spits out a family tree. So what??

It must be a conspiracy between 200 scientists over 4 years from 80 different institutions because you are incredulous at their results? Your objection is not based on evidence (it seems), and must be dismissed.

I didn't reject it outright, and I even said that it might have some value, in the right context.

You haven't even said what you think it means to a discussion of UCA, so how can I argue or object without knowing what I'm objecting to. Tell me why you think this has value as evidence in a discussion with someone who is skeptical of the conclusion of UCA, then we can discuss it sensibly. For now you're just throwing out the normal allegations that evos make about dissenters, that we believe its a conspiracy theory, which is a false allegation.

I didn't say anything about UCA, you did. I posted this so I might glean some information from more knowledgeable users since I have not researched it at all (and most of it is probably over my head). Feel free to state objections related to the data. I'm not interested in objections to the methodology because it would require a conspiracy for success. I find that silly, and not worthy of further response.

No actually Otokage brought it in to the context of being used in such a discussion. I simply followed that lead and assumed that was your intent. If not, my apologies.

On a side note...How do you know if something is, or is not, evidence for a conclusion, if you never question the methodology, and just bandwagon with the majority?? That seems to be an indication that you are a) appealing to a majority, b) have an a priori belief and accepting whatever you're told, by those who agree with you, or c) just plain gullible.

I'm not sure where you get the mistaken belief that questioning, or being skeptical, of a scientist or group of scientists, means that you have to believe in a conspiracy theory. Ever heard the saying, "You gotta stand for something or you'll fall for anything"??

Was steady state a conspiracy?? How about spontaneous generation?? Piltdown Man?? Junk DNA?? Were those conspiracies?? No, they were just wrong, and they didn't get shown to be wrong by people just going along with the majority and accepting them at face value, as you seem willing to do.
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2014 12:29:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/18/2014 9:50:48 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 12/17/2014 8:08:10 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
Birds Evolved in 'Big Bang,' New Family Tree Reveals.

The new findings show that Neoaves underwent a "Big Bang" of evolution, with many new species appearing within just a few million years of the time that most dinosaurs went extinct about 66 million years ago. Previous work had suggested a more gradual evolution of this group.


http://www.livescience.com...

If the pre-written computer program says so then it must be true...*shakes head sarcastically*...I'm not really sure what value you think this has. It may indeed have some value in some context, disease physiology as a possible example, but if you want to use it as evidence, in a discussion of UCA, it is irrelevant. A scientist programs a computer with his a priori assumptions, plugs in some data about birds, and as expected, it spits out a family tree. So what??

If it were a program written with a vested interest in mind, then why didn't the computer programmer simply write it in such a way that the results coincided with previous finding rather than contradicting them?

Also, are you doubting the existence of a family tree again? It stands to reason that allthe animals that exist today didn't always exist. The coywold and the liger are two glaring examples that have emerged within the last few decades, and have family trees that can be traced to the point before they were a distinct species (to coyotes and wolves, and to lions and tigers, respectively).
v3nesl
Posts: 4,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2014 1:03:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/18/2014 4:44:43 AM, Otokage wrote:
Woah. That's clearly an evidence for God and disproves evolution. One cambrian explosion was already impossible to explain by evolutionists, but TWO? Oh how the mighty have fallen! This is undoubtly our sweet lord baby jesus givin' a lesson in humility to those evilutionists!




....

I'm sorry, I did not want to give them the satisfaction of being the first to say that cr*ap :D

Well, I'm still confused. The article says, "as part of a massive effort to reconstruct how birds evolved." Doesn't that mean they don't yet know how birds evolved? So if they don't know HOW they evolved, how do they know that they DID evolve? I thought this stuff was 'settled science' - ?
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2014 1:13:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/18/2014 9:50:48 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 12/17/2014 8:08:10 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
Birds Evolved in 'Big Bang,' New Family Tree Reveals.

The new findings show that Neoaves underwent a "Big Bang" of evolution, with many new species appearing within just a few million years of the time that most dinosaurs went extinct about 66 million years ago. Previous work had suggested a more gradual evolution of this group.


http://www.livescience.com...

If the pre-written computer program says so then it must be true...*shakes head sarcastically*...I'm not really sure what value you think this has. It may indeed have some value in some context, disease physiology as a possible example, but if you want to use it as evidence, in a discussion of UCA, it is irrelevant. A scientist programs a computer with his a priori assumptions, plugs in some data about birds, and as expected, it spits out a family tree. So what??

Yeah, it has value if you know the cause/effect relationship. If A descended from B,C,D, or E, which of these is closest? Which one has the least difference from A? Such comparisons are fine if you know the relationship, but do nothing to validate the assumed cause/effect relationship. It's like "Joe is unconscious on the floor. If he fell out of a window, he no doubt fell out of the window directly above where he was found". That's good sound logic, but finding Joe under the window does not prove he fell out of the window. He might have gone to open the window because he felt sick. He might have been poisoned. Cause/effect cannot be determined just by endless correlation of data.
This space for rent.
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2014 1:32:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/18/2014 1:03:29 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 12/18/2014 4:44:43 AM, Otokage wrote:
Woah. That's clearly an evidence for God and disproves evolution. One cambrian explosion was already impossible to explain by evolutionists, but TWO? Oh how the mighty have fallen! This is undoubtly our sweet lord baby jesus givin' a lesson in humility to those evilutionists!




....

I'm sorry, I did not want to give them the satisfaction of being the first to say that cr*ap :D

Well, I'm still confused. The article says, "as part of a massive effort to reconstruct how birds evolved." Doesn't that mean they don't yet know how birds evolved? So if they don't know HOW they evolved, how do they know that they DID evolve? I thought this stuff was 'settled science' - ?

"A new family tree of the world's bird species may be the most complete one ever made, and reveals some surprising relationships, as well as showing how characteristics such as birdsong evolved."http://www.livescience.com...

It seems as though they are trying to figure out how birds diversified.

Scientists know how they evolved from dinosaurs:

https://www.youtube.com...

http://www.academia.edu...
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
v3nesl
Posts: 4,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2014 2:11:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/18/2014 1:32:24 PM, SamStevens wrote:
...

It seems as though they are trying to figure out how birds diversified.

Scientists know how they evolved from dinosaurs:

https://www.youtube.com...

http://www.academia.edu...

I didn't go to youtube, but your 2nd link is the exact same thing we're talking about: Assuming birds evolved from dinos, what are the most likely candidates, based on similiarities. The evolution is merely assumed. You might be able to dis-prove descent from a particular possible ancestor with this sort of analysis, but you can never demonstrate the descent this way. Another example: If the Beatles got the idea for "Long and winding road" from somebody else, what might that song be? But if they wrote it from scratch, comparing song structure to other songs is meaningless.
This space for rent.
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2014 2:20:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/18/2014 2:11:32 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 12/18/2014 1:32:24 PM, SamStevens wrote:
...

It seems as though they are trying to figure out how birds diversified.

Scientists know how they evolved from dinosaurs:

https://www.youtube.com...

http://www.academia.edu...

I didn't go to youtube, but your 2nd link is the exact same thing we're talking about: Assuming birds evolved from dinos, what are the most likely candidates, based on similiarities. The evolution is merely assumed. You might be able to dis-prove descent from a particular possible ancestor with this sort of analysis, but you can never demonstrate the descent this way. Another example: If the Beatles got the idea for "Long and winding road" from somebody else, what might that song be? But if they wrote it from scratch, comparing song structure to other songs is meaningless.

Well, the youtube link was just a summary of the pdf file.

It is not assumed( suppose to be the case, without proof.).

Out of curiosity, what do you mean by this? " The evolution is merely assumed".
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2014 2:21:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/18/2014 2:11:32 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 12/18/2014 1:32:24 PM, SamStevens wrote:
...

It seems as though they are trying to figure out how birds diversified.

Scientists know how they evolved from dinosaurs:

https://www.youtube.com...

http://www.academia.edu...

I didn't go to youtube, but your 2nd link is the exact same thing we're talking about: Assuming birds evolved from dinos, what are the most likely candidates, based on similiarities. The evolution is merely assumed. You might be able to dis-prove descent from a particular possible ancestor with this sort of analysis, but you can never demonstrate the descent this way. Another example: If the Beatles got the idea for "Long and winding road" from somebody else, what might that song be? But if they wrote it from scratch, comparing song structure to other songs is meaningless.

" The evolution is merely assumed"

I can provide several cases where macro evolution is not assumed.
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
v3nesl
Posts: 4,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2014 8:14:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/18/2014 2:20:59 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 12/18/2014 2:11:32 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 12/18/2014 1:32:24 PM, SamStevens wrote:
...

It seems as though they are trying to figure out how birds diversified.

Scientists know how they evolved from dinosaurs:

https://www.youtube.com...

http://www.academia.edu...

I didn't go to youtube, but your 2nd link is the exact same thing we're talking about: Assuming birds evolved from dinos, what are the most likely candidates, based on similiarities. The evolution is merely assumed. You might be able to dis-prove descent from a particular possible ancestor with this sort of analysis, but you can never demonstrate the descent this way. Another example: If the Beatles got the idea for "Long and winding road" from somebody else, what might that song be? But if they wrote it from scratch, comparing song structure to other songs is meaningless.

Well, the youtube link was just a summary of the pdf file.

It is not assumed( suppose to be the case, without proof.).

Out of curiosity, what do you mean by this? " The evolution is merely assumed".

I got a chuckle out of this: First you flat out disagree, then afterwards ask what I mean. No bias here, right?

Anyway, "assumed" is a sort of technical term, it doesn't mean anything bad. "If we assume the temperature at the equator cannot be below freezing, we can assume we won't find ice in the lakes". That sort of thing. So in the studies referenced in this thread, there is no effort to prove evolution, it's existence is assumed.
This space for rent.
IEnglishman
Posts: 148
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2014 9:09:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/18/2014 4:44:43 AM, Otokage wrote:
Woah. That's clearly an evidence for God and disproves evolution. One cambrian explosion was already impossible to explain by evolutionists, but TWO? Oh how the mighty have fallen! This is undoubtly our sweet lord baby jesus givin' a lesson in humility to those evilutionists!




....

I'm sorry, I did not want to give them the satisfaction of being the first to say that cr*ap :D

Your belief that soups of toxic chemicals got hit by lightning which rearranged themselves for no reason to become everything is OBVIOUSLY SO much more rational.

Atheism- 1
Thiests-0
Bulproof admits he's a troll http://www.debate.org... (see post 16). Do not feed.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2014 11:24:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/19/2014 9:09:48 AM, IEnglishman wrote:
At 12/18/2014 4:44:43 AM, Otokage wrote:
Woah. That's clearly an evidence for God and disproves evolution. One cambrian explosion was already impossible to explain by evolutionists, but TWO? Oh how the mighty have fallen! This is undoubtly our sweet lord baby jesus givin' a lesson in humility to those evilutionists!




....

I'm sorry, I did not want to give them the satisfaction of being the first to say that cr*ap :D

Your belief that soups of toxic chemicals got hit by lightning which rearranged themselves for no reason to become everything is OBVIOUSLY SO much more rational.

Atheism- 1
Thiests-0

Hey that's-! ... No wait, it is still more rational now that I think of it. :/
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2014 11:33:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/19/2014 8:14:03 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 12/18/2014 2:20:59 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 12/18/2014 2:11:32 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 12/18/2014 1:32:24 PM, SamStevens wrote:
...

It seems as though they are trying to figure out how birds diversified.

Scientists know how they evolved from dinosaurs:

https://www.youtube.com...

http://www.academia.edu...

I didn't go to youtube, but your 2nd link is the exact same thing we're talking about: Assuming birds evolved from dinos, what are the most likely candidates, based on similiarities. The evolution is merely assumed. You might be able to dis-prove descent from a particular possible ancestor with this sort of analysis, but you can never demonstrate the descent this way. Another example: If the Beatles got the idea for "Long and winding road" from somebody else, what might that song be? But if they wrote it from scratch, comparing song structure to other songs is meaningless.

Well, the youtube link was just a summary of the pdf file.

It is not assumed( suppose to be the case, without proof.).

Out of curiosity, what do you mean by this? " The evolution is merely assumed".

I got a chuckle out of this: First you flat out disagree, then afterwards ask what I mean. No bias here, right?

It's not bias. Most of the time, I have trouble choosing my words and I contemplate whether or not they are the right words to use. Some of my posts are haphazardly put together so sometimes I go back and reply to minor details.

Anyway, "assumed" is a sort of technical term, it doesn't mean anything bad. "If we assume the temperature at the equator cannot be below freezing, we can assume we won't find ice in the lakes". That sort of thing. So in the studies referenced in this thread, there is no effort to prove evolution, it's existence is assumed.

https://www.youtube.com...
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
v3nesl
Posts: 4,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2014 2:41:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/19/2014 11:33:58 AM, SamStevens wrote:
...

Anyway, "assumed" is a sort of technical term, it doesn't mean anything bad. "If we assume the temperature at the equator cannot be below freezing, we can assume we won't find ice in the lakes". That sort of thing. So in the studies referenced in this thread, there is no effort to prove evolution, it's existence is assumed.

https://www.youtube.com...

Yeah, I've seen that clip. I do have to point out how bogus it is to spend the first 10 minutes or so saying "If you don't accept what I'm about to tell you you're an uneducated idiot". People with overwhelming evidence don't need tactics like that.

But you know, I've never denied that the evidence correlates with evolution. The evidence is there, but it's being misinterpreted. Like I've said an annoying amount of times, it's much like the Ptolemaic version of the orbits - it was sophisticated, it was based on abundant evidence and observation, it was explanatory, it was predictive and thus useful. It was good science, really, just wrong in its fundamental assumption.

And none of this has anything to do with what I said about evolution being assumed in the referenced studies. Don't be afraid to try and actually understand what somebody is saying, eh?
This space for rent.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2014 2:49:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/18/2014 12:29:25 PM, Such wrote:
At 12/18/2014 9:50:48 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 12/17/2014 8:08:10 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
Birds Evolved in 'Big Bang,' New Family Tree Reveals.

The new findings show that Neoaves underwent a "Big Bang" of evolution, with many new species appearing within just a few million years of the time that most dinosaurs went extinct about 66 million years ago. Previous work had suggested a more gradual evolution of this group.


http://www.livescience.com...

If the pre-written computer program says so then it must be true...*shakes head sarcastically*...I'm not really sure what value you think this has. It may indeed have some value in some context, disease physiology as a possible example, but if you want to use it as evidence, in a discussion of UCA, it is irrelevant. A scientist programs a computer with his a priori assumptions, plugs in some data about birds, and as expected, it spits out a family tree. So what??

If it were a program written with a vested interest in mind, then why didn't the computer programmer simply write it in such a way that the results coincided with previous finding rather than contradicting them?

Are you really na"ve enough to think that the program was written in such a way that it would sort the data according to their biblical "kind"??

Also, are you doubting the existence of a family tree again? It stands to reason that allthe animals that exist today didn't always exist. The coywold and the liger are two glaring examples that have emerged within the last few decades, and have family trees that can be traced to the point before they were a distinct species (to coyotes and wolves, and to lions and tigers, respectively).

It only stands to reason if you make the type of unscientific assumptions that evolutionists are willing to make. I'm not.
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2014 2:58:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/19/2014 2:49:10 PM, medic0506 wrote:

Also, are you doubting the existence of a family tree again? It stands to reason that allthe animals that exist today didn't always exist. The coywold and the liger are two glaring examples that have emerged within the last few decades, and have family trees that can be traced to the point before they were a distinct species (to coyotes and wolves, and to lions and tigers, respectively).

It only stands to reason if you make the type of unscientific assumptions that evolutionists are willing to make. I'm not.

I don't understand -- what unscientific assumptions would lead someone to realize that the coywolf and the liger are distinct species? They are morphologically and genetically different from those they emerged from. Therefore, they are distinct. This would therefore mean that they are evolution in action -- speciation right before your eyes.

Rather than simply reject it outright for no discernible reason, do you have any actual refutations that detract from what I'm telling you?
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2014 4:56:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/19/2014 2:58:36 PM, Such wrote:
At 12/19/2014 2:49:10 PM, medic0506 wrote:

Also, are you doubting the existence of a family tree again? It stands to reason that allthe animals that exist today didn't always exist. The coywold and the liger are two glaring examples that have emerged within the last few decades, and have family trees that can be traced to the point before they were a distinct species (to coyotes and wolves, and to lions and tigers, respectively).

It only stands to reason if you make the type of unscientific assumptions that evolutionists are willing to make. I'm not.

I don't understand -- what unscientific assumptions would lead someone to realize that the coywolf and the liger are distinct species? They are morphologically and genetically different from those they emerged from. Therefore, they are distinct. This would therefore mean that they are evolution in action -- speciation right before your eyes.

Rather than simply reject it outright for no discernible reason, do you have any actual refutations that detract from what I'm telling you?

So what...you are genetically different than who you emerged from. Does that make you a different and distinct organism?? That's what your logic would seem to indicate.

You can call it "speciation", or what ever label you want to slap on it but they are nothing more than a recombination of the parental DNA, just like you are. This is nothing more than trying to argue major change using wordplay. It certainly doesn't warrant the argument for fish-to-human evolution.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2014 5:01:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/18/2014 1:13:40 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 12/18/2014 9:50:48 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 12/17/2014 8:08:10 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
Birds Evolved in 'Big Bang,' New Family Tree Reveals.

The new findings show that Neoaves underwent a "Big Bang" of evolution, with many new species appearing within just a few million years of the time that most dinosaurs went extinct about 66 million years ago. Previous work had suggested a more gradual evolution of this group.


http://www.livescience.com...

If the pre-written computer program says so then it must be true...*shakes head sarcastically*...I'm not really sure what value you think this has. It may indeed have some value in some context, disease physiology as a possible example, but if you want to use it as evidence, in a discussion of UCA, it is irrelevant. A scientist programs a computer with his a priori assumptions, plugs in some data about birds, and as expected, it spits out a family tree. So what??

Yeah, it has value if you know the cause/effect relationship. If A descended from B,C,D, or E, which of these is closest? Which one has the least difference from A? Such comparisons are fine if you know the relationship, but do nothing to validate the assumed cause/effect relationship. It's like "Joe is unconscious on the floor. If he fell out of a window, he no doubt fell out of the window directly above where he was found". That's good sound logic, but finding Joe under the window does not prove he fell out of the window. He might have gone to open the window because he felt sick. He might have been poisoned. Cause/effect cannot be determined just by endless correlation of data.

Correct, and when there is more than one way to explain the correlation, it's rather silly to rule one out because you don't like it, and assume the other, when you have no empirical evidence that it's even possible.
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2014 5:31:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/19/2014 4:56:12 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 12/19/2014 2:58:36 PM, Such wrote:
At 12/19/2014 2:49:10 PM, medic0506 wrote:

Also, are you doubting the existence of a family tree again? It stands to reason that allthe animals that exist today didn't always exist. The coywold and the liger are two glaring examples that have emerged within the last few decades, and have family trees that can be traced to the point before they were a distinct species (to coyotes and wolves, and to lions and tigers, respectively).

It only stands to reason if you make the type of unscientific assumptions that evolutionists are willing to make. I'm not.

I don't understand -- what unscientific assumptions would lead someone to realize that the coywolf and the liger are distinct species? They are morphologically and genetically different from those they emerged from. Therefore, they are distinct. This would therefore mean that they are evolution in action -- speciation right before your eyes.

Rather than simply reject it outright for no discernible reason, do you have any actual refutations that detract from what I'm telling you?

So what...you are genetically different than who you emerged from. Does that make you a different and distinct organism?? That's what your logic would seem to indicate.

You're right, and I am a different and distinct organism from what I emerged from. You as well. All of us humans emerged from a different and distinct organism. That is precisely my point.

You can call it "speciation", or what ever label you want to slap on it but they are nothing more than a recombination of the parental DNA, just like you are. This is nothing more than trying to argue major change using wordplay. It certainly doesn't warrant the argument for fish-to-human evolution.

Evolution literally occurs as a result of a recombination of parental DNA. But, what you seem to believe is that the liger is simply an exact cross between a tiger and a lion -- an average between the two, if you will.

But, they're not. They're larger than either a lion or a tiger. The males are sterile. It merely takes one that isn't to breed and continue the lineage. They would become less a hybrid and more a species at that point.

In any case, what is all this about "fish-to-human evolution"? Are you referring to those oversimplified diagrams? There was a whole lot that occurred between the animals in the ocean and what eventually became mammals, then later humans. We're talking billions of years, here. To contrast, humanity has about 6,000 years of recorded history, and biology stretches back at most, 1,500 years. We've lived about a moment and have recorded less than a second, but with the evidence that we have, we can determine that life reaches back years.

Of course changes have occurred that are drastic in that duration of time, especially if, within the last century, we have pretty dramatic changes occurring right before our eyes.

It's not even a stretch. When considered objectively and logically, it's actually likely.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2014 6:00:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/19/2014 5:31:45 PM, Such wrote:

Rather than simply reject it outright for no discernible reason, do you have any actual refutations that detract from what I'm telling you?

So what...you are genetically different than who you emerged from. Does that make you a different and distinct organism?? That's what your logic would seem to indicate.

You're right, and I am a different and distinct organism from what I emerged from. You as well. All of us humans emerged from a different and distinct organism. That is precisely my point.

What you "emerged" from was your mother. Ask her, she was there. Are you seriously telling me that the differences between yourself and your parents, justifies the belief that fish can change to humans, in your mind?? If that's the case then nothing I can say will matter. You really gotta want to believe something like that.

You can call it "speciation", or what ever label you want to slap on it but they are nothing more than a recombination of the parental DNA, just like you are. This is nothing more than trying to argue major change using wordplay. It certainly doesn't warrant the argument for fish-to-human evolution.

Evolution literally occurs as a result of a recombination of parental DNA. But, what you seem to believe is that the liger is simply an exact cross between a tiger and a lion -- an average between the two, if you will.

You get half the chromosomes from each parent. Does that create an "exact" cross?? No, but it's relatively close. It's certainly closer to a lion and a tiger than it is to a catfish and a butterfly.

But, they're not. They're larger than either a lion or a tiger. The males are sterile. It merely takes one that isn't to breed and continue the lineage. They would become less a hybrid and more a species at that point.

In any case, what is all this about "fish-to-human evolution"? Are you referring to those oversimplified diagrams? There was a whole lot that occurred between the animals in the ocean and what eventually became mammals, then later humans. We're talking billions of years, here. To contrast, humanity has about 6,000 years of recorded history, and biology stretches back at most, 1,500 years. We've lived about a moment and have recorded less than a second, but with the evidence that we have, we can determine that life reaches back years.

It'd be more accurate to say that some can "imagine" that happening.

Of course changes have occurred that are drastic in that duration of time, especially if, within the last century, we have pretty dramatic changes occurring right before our eyes.

It's not even a stretch. When considered objectively and logically, it's actually likely.

You mean like flies evolving into...flies?? If you want to call that dramatic, go ahead, but I'd say that to keep doing the same thing over and over again and expect a different result than the one you can see every time, is the very definition of insanity. How many tens of thousands of generations of flies producing more flies, without fail, do you have to see before you can finally accept that all you're ever going to get, when two flies breed, is a fly??
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2014 6:32:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/19/2014 6:00:27 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 12/19/2014 5:31:45 PM, Such wrote:

Rather than simply reject it outright for no discernible reason, do you have any actual refutations that detract from what I'm telling you?

So what...you are genetically different than who you emerged from. Does that make you a different and distinct organism?? That's what your logic would seem to indicate.

You're right, and I am a different and distinct organism from what I emerged from. You as well. All of us humans emerged from a different and distinct organism. That is precisely my point.

What you "emerged" from was your mother. Ask her, she was there. Are you seriously telling me that the differences between yourself and your parents, justifies the belief that fish can change to humans, in your mind?? If that's the case then nothing I can say will matter. You really gotta want to believe something like that.

You can call it "speciation", or what ever label you want to slap on it but they are nothing more than a recombination of the parental DNA, just like you are. This is nothing more than trying to argue major change using wordplay. It certainly doesn't warrant the argument for fish-to-human evolution.

Evolution literally occurs as a result of a recombination of parental DNA. But, what you seem to believe is that the liger is simply an exact cross between a tiger and a lion -- an average between the two, if you will.

You get half the chromosomes from each parent. Does that create an "exact" cross?? No, but it's relatively close. It's certainly closer to a lion and a tiger than it is to a catfish and a butterfly.

But, they're not. They're larger than either a lion or a tiger. The males are sterile. It merely takes one that isn't to breed and continue the lineage. They would become less a hybrid and more a species at that point.

In any case, what is all this about "fish-to-human evolution"? Are you referring to those oversimplified diagrams? There was a whole lot that occurred between the animals in the ocean and what eventually became mammals, then later humans. We're talking billions of years, here. To contrast, humanity has about 6,000 years of recorded history, and biology stretches back at most, 1,500 years. We've lived about a moment and have recorded less than a second, but with the evidence that we have, we can determine that life reaches back years.

It'd be more accurate to say that some can "imagine" that happening.

Of course changes have occurred that are drastic in that duration of time, especially if, within the last century, we have pretty dramatic changes occurring right before our eyes.

It's not even a stretch. When considered objectively and logically, it's actually likely.

You mean like flies evolving into...flies?? If you want to call that dramatic, go ahead, but I'd say that to keep doing the same thing over and over again and expect a different result than the one you can see every time, is the very definition of insanity. How many tens of thousands of generations of flies producing more flies, without fail, do you have to see before you can finally accept that all you're ever going to get, when two flies breed, is a fly??

Well, of course, until they start turning into beetles.

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com...