exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Well now you have finally run up the Jolly Roger!
Nobody but a creationist ever uses the term "evolutionist".
In science, the term for such an individual is "educated person".
Denial of Evolution VI.
- Thread starter garbonzo
- Start date
- Status
Well now you have finally run up the Jolly Roger!
Nobody but a creationist ever uses the term "evolutionist".
In science, the term for such an individual is "educated person".
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
This is not an academy and I'm not a paid reviewer. It's not my job--or anybody else's--to review every single one of your ridiculous posts and explain why they're ridiculous. Your ideas have been torn to shreds over and over again yet you just won't shut the fuck up and get the hell out of here. You continue to embarrass yourself and now you insist that you might still be right because nobody has taken the trouble to explain why all of your crap is wrong, rather than just most of it--which is impossible because you always come right back with more crap and act as if you haven't already been shut down ten times.
We have other things to do with our time than engage in endless, futile arguments with somone who doesn't care about the truth, but just wants to be told that he is right. There are far more interesting discussions on this website.
This is the reason that we only allow evolution denialists to post their bullshit on this one thread. So everybody who doesn't want to waste their time on recycled arguments that have already been discredited, can read something else without accidentally stumbling onto this one.
leopold
E.e. croceater and E.e. eschscholzil cannot interbreed, they are separate species of salamanders(like a gorilla and a human are different species of apes). But in the case of salamanders, their entire evolutionary history back to their common ancestor(the "fork")is still alive(E.e,picta).
That's how evolution works over shorter time periods, but once a fork occurs the two branches never meet again, traits that one branch develops are not inherited by the other branch and over longer periods of time you get greater differences, like rats and apes once shared a common ancestor that was a mammal(and probably looked more like a rat than an ape, as in small, furry, sharp toothed burrowing creature with a tail)sometime after 69 million years ago(apes did not exist then(but rat-like creatures did), that was the age of 20 ton chickens). The different beaks developed by the many different species of finches is a small change compared to that between rats and apes, but such small changes accumulate after the fork. Penguins once flew in the air just like every other bird, whales descended from hippo-like herbivores with four hoofs, elephants descended from the same common ancestors as rats. The further back in time the ancestors of two creatures split in a fork, the more different they can be. The designation "species" is just the smallest increment of these differences, it designates the point where the two(or more)lineages last could share their DNA. Separate species cannot interbreed and produce viable descendents(the horse and the donkey are in the last stages of speciation, they can still produce offspring, but those offspring are sterile). We see forks everywhere in the history of life on Earth.
He came to erroneous conclusions based on insufficient information, thirty years later we know better. That's error, not lying. Gould made the same mistake, his ego pushed him well beyond the data available at the time. They both proved to be mistaken, in error, misguided and WRONG.
Grumpy
E.e. croceater and E.e. eschscholzil cannot interbreed, they are separate species of salamanders(like a gorilla and a human are different species of apes). But in the case of salamanders, their entire evolutionary history back to their common ancestor(the "fork")is still alive(E.e,picta).
That's how evolution works over shorter time periods, but once a fork occurs the two branches never meet again, traits that one branch develops are not inherited by the other branch and over longer periods of time you get greater differences, like rats and apes once shared a common ancestor that was a mammal(and probably looked more like a rat than an ape, as in small, furry, sharp toothed burrowing creature with a tail)sometime after 69 million years ago(apes did not exist then(but rat-like creatures did), that was the age of 20 ton chickens). The different beaks developed by the many different species of finches is a small change compared to that between rats and apes, but such small changes accumulate after the fork. Penguins once flew in the air just like every other bird, whales descended from hippo-like herbivores with four hoofs, elephants descended from the same common ancestors as rats. The further back in time the ancestors of two creatures split in a fork, the more different they can be. The designation "species" is just the smallest increment of these differences, it designates the point where the two(or more)lineages last could share their DNA. Separate species cannot interbreed and produce viable descendents(the horse and the donkey are in the last stages of speciation, they can still produce offspring, but those offspring are sterile). We see forks everywhere in the history of life on Earth.
He came to erroneous conclusions based on insufficient information, thirty years later we know better. That's error, not lying. Gould made the same mistake, his ego pushed him well beyond the data available at the time. They both proved to be mistaken, in error, misguided and WRONG.
Grumpy
Educated person means repeater. Does not mean they are smart it means they can read something and repeat.
No individual ideas, but just repeat.
Most of you repeaters could never come up with stuff by yourself. Thats why science hated tesla, as he could do things you couldn't, and could not explain, with your limited repeating brains.
Science people are all mainly just repeaters.
So stop claiming your super brains, anyone can be a repeater if they do there homework at school and bother trying. Yep some may find it harder than others, but all have the capability of repeating.
Only a minority have the capability of finding stuff out on there own.
So stop glorifying your education of learning to be a repeater.
As far as i am concerned repeaters do not mean nothing. Your whole education if you cannot think outside the box means nout. Thats what most repeaters are, just repeaters. Never had any original thoughts of there own.
Make sure you read some science book and repeat it back to me, without even working out for yourself if it means truth.
Your whole education means nout other than your a repeater. Do not come out with stuff about your smart as you passed some exam of being a repeater, so what. Did you find out any of that stuff by yourself, no you just read it in a book and repeated it. Thats not smart, or clever, thats just drones.
Most of you repeaters have never had one original thought in your life, so stop claiming your super brainiacs.
Richard dawkins is the champion of that stuff called evolution. Just listen to the guy. He is like when you where in primary school, and listening to people swear about peoples mums, and curse peoples mums. His intellect is so big, he has the same debating skills, as someone in primary school playground.
No, but we have changed wolves into rats.
No, educated person means someone who has learned to think.
Anyone can repeat. Grade school kids recite things. It takes a good education to develop your critical thinking skills.
Science loved Tesla. We use his work today. He was crazy, unfortunately, which meant that he had no end of problems in his own life.
Are you an uneducated repeater? What "stuff" have you found out on your own?
Another thing? No. If you have something now it would be your first thing, because up until now you have been worshiping a story and elevating it about basic observations about the universe, logic, truth and fact. You have ascribed to Lewin powers no human being actually has, and persecuted those that claim like human beings Lewin might be wrong on occasion and that all sorts of evidence strongly indicates that he was in fact wrong in his summary of a 1980 conference and that even if he was right about a position held by some at the conference it was not a view supported by science then or now. In elevating Lewingraphosebasma you ignore Lewin's own warning that he may be an unreliable storyteller when he writes "At the risk of doing violence to the position of some people at the meeting..." And in your slavish adoration of the writings of Lewin, you commit logical fallacies like using shifting of goal posts to ignore evidence that no human being interested in truth would ignore, and invent categorical untruths to try and explain how Lewin could be correct in a completely different universe of facts.
Ring species, direct observation of speciation, biogenesis experiments plus the history of life, cladistics, etc. Moreover we have demonstrated evidence that the purported models for speciation (microevolutionary changes to isolated populations) result in speciation (macroevolutionary change). Indeed, one of the defining characteristics of the E. coli species is its inability to metabolize citrate in an aerobic environment. After tens of thousands of generations in various isolated populations, one population developed the ability to metabolize citrate even in the presence of oxygen and this change made the new bacteria grow faster than its sister E. coli strain Bc251 bacteria.
First of all, speciation (and all evolution) happens to populations not individuals. If I mutate and gain the power to (realistic) grow stronger fingernails or (unrealistic) have prehensile hair that is not evolution until it is a heritable trait which means I need to spend some time at the singles bar and less time jumping from rooftop to rooftop as Hardass Nails. Unless the heritable trait enters the gene pool there is no effect on competitive reproduction and it can never be fixed in the population. Second of all, a chrysalis is a developmental stage in the lifetime of moth and butterfly individuals that has no genetic change associated with it and therefore no effect on even microevolution. So you are ignorantly abusing biological terminology to associate the two. Ignoring that your question seems to be something like "What if speciation is like a fraction of individuals all simultaneously massively mutating in the same manner?" which is forking if that fraction isn't exactly 0% or 100%. But there is no evidence anywhere in biology of coordinated multiple mutations, so the scenario you describe does not have any basis in reality. It's categorically denied in all observed speciation events. Indeed, the defining principle of mutations is that they have a profoundly unguided appearance and only natural selection results in the appearance of a "direction" to evolutionary change.
This is a ridiculous assertion since "finch" is not a species but a
See also CB901.2, CB901, CA202.
Your assertion is strong evidence that the new title of this thread "Denial of Evolution" is substantially correct and might as well be replaced with "Denial of Reality".
Neither you or Lewin is an expert in the field of paleontology qualified to speak to the volume of the fossil record. And even Lewin didn't say the fossil record was not complete enough -- just that it was less complete than a NSA dossier on the life and times of every organism over the last 3.5 billion years.the stated article alludes to the lack of data but i supposed lewin lied about that too.
But now you are being coy in saying Lewin was being coy. I think you are Lewin's delusional stalker boyfriend reading coded come-on messages from Lewin that noone (including Lewin) sees. Instead of explaining exactly where Lewin hides this hint and explaining exactly what he means (and perhaps why he only hinted when the purpose of a news article is to convey news), you ridiculously nakedly assert your almost-claim based on nothing. Your Lewin-erotomania is the opposite of a reasonable conclusion. Other people might beat a dead horse -- you are intent, it seems, in treating it in a manner yet more unseemly.
Here is Lewin referring to the data of life on the planet and nowhere does he say that the evidence isn't good enough to prove evolution true and nowhere does he say that the 1980's fossil evidence would not be added to over time. My additions are in square brackets.
Roger Lewin said:
Last edited:
There is no such barrier. There isn't even a theory about how species could remain unique and not change. Define those terms, "rat", "dog","fruit fly". Are you classifying them using anything other than physical appearance? Because that is an argument from incredulity. Whales used to be land animals, that is a fact because there are vestigial hip bones and other characteristics that could not have come about any other way.
If only you would do some research from time to time, you might save yourself some ebarresment.and that's another thing.
what demonstrated evidence is there that says a species "forks"?
i realize it's logical to assume it does but what if it's some kind of chrysalis phenomenon?
darwins finches?
doesn't apply because they are all finches.
the stated article alludes to the lack of data but i supposed lewin lied about that too.
For example, Finch refers to the family of birds Fringiliidae, not a species. There are a large number of species of Finch, so saying "doesn't apply because they're all finches" is about as ridiculous as saying that the sequence Chimp-Human common ancestor -> Human doesn't count because they're all hominids.
"Person who is right" is equally valid. >_>
I was referring to the inapplicability of "rat to dog" as far as the cladistic trees of phyla are concerned. Gene flow is sequential at the fork in speciation, not tip-to-tip across distant branches. The rest (rat to dog) sounds like Dr. Frankenstein's School of Animal Husbandry.
As for 'demonstratable' evidence, the simplest is the one you gave, the fruit fly.
If you mean metamorphosis--in the context of creating a new phenotype, there's no parallel. The closest would be embryonic development, a primitive process related to metamorphosis, but it doesn't affect the genome.
Since the fruit fly is easily persuaded to mutate, it's the more convenient teaching aid.
(They are not true finches.) Darwin's finches do not interbreed; they are each a new species. It was this issue that plagued Darwin: how could highly differentiated non-interbreeding groups descend from a common breeding pair? He compared this to the possible ways artificial selection was known to work, and inferred that nature was doing effectively the same thing, only per the Malthus model, survival of the fittest.
So, yes, Darwin's finches are the prime example of this. In this case the fork has 13 or 14 prongs.
This characterization is only valid in the proper context. If you oversimplify and generalize enough, then it becomes the creationist argument that the Theory of Evolution is flatly false. What's better is to try to understand the discussion in its proper context and to try to delve into the science a little. Consider first your aversion to the teaching of evolution as "accumulation of gradual changes". Take a timeline or the geologic eras, and, starting with cyanobacteria, find what the fossil record tells us about the approximate dates of first candidate ancestor of each of the major taxa. You will get something like this:the stated article alludes to the lack of data but i supposed lewin lied about that too.
3.6 billion years of simple cells (prokaryotes),
3.4 billion years of cyanobacteria performing photosynthesis,
2 billion years of complex cells (eukaryotes),
1 billion years of multicellular life,
600 million years of simple animals,
555 million years of arthropods (ancestors of insects, arachnids and crustaceans),
550 million years of complex animals,
500 million years of fish and proto-amphibians,
475 million years of land plants,
400 million years of insects and seeds,
360 million years of amphibians,
300 million years of reptiles,
200 million years of mammals,
150 million years of birds,
130 million years of flowers,
66 million years since the dinosaurs died out,
20 million years since the appearance of the family Hominidae (great apes)
2.5 million years since the appearance of the genus Homo (human predecessors)
200,000 years since the appearance of anatomically modern humans,
25,000 years since the disappearance of Neanderthal traits from the fossil record.
13,000 years since the disappearance of Homo floresiensis from the fossil record.
This is a highly reduced way of evaluating the fossil record, common for the school books. Is there evidence of gradualism here? Is the data lacking? It's quite evident what has happened on Earth when viewing all of evolution at lowest magnification. The mere succession of forms over time is ample data for declaring macro scale gradualism. But if instead of avoiding the science you were to delve into it and ask yourself: when did the first vestiges of each of the major human body parts first appear? . . . you will find gradualism on an entirely different level. The eye begins with the cyanobacteria's photosynthetic cells. By the time of algae (cell colonies) the photo receptor becomes delegated to a cell or cell cluster - because by then cells have acquired the ability to specialize even though they carry the same DNA. They diverge into two functional types belonging to one "body", and they do it by signalling. But signalling becomes the mode of fertilization when sexual reproduction appears. It also gives root to primitive nervous processes in Cnidaria (jellies). But then worms take that to a higher level by tying the nerves to a CPU, a very primitive brain called "ganglia", on primitive spinal cords. Worms also introduce a coelum (gut) and this stages the process for all higher forms, and is seen in homologue during early embryonic development in a process called gastrulation. Fish have first vertebra, and their air sacs (for controlling buoyancy) are filled through nares--precursors to nostrils-- while their fins are precursors to legs. Fish brains are advanced enough to support relatively high level instincts. (Have you seen the goldfish shooting hoops to get fed?) The amphibians bridge the world of water and dry land and begin as tadpoles. Reptiles have true lungs and better adapted eggs, birds have the first helpless young, and the tendency to pair bond, etc. etc. I'll stop here even though I've done it no service by this level of reduction.
But I hope you get my point. You can't read that article in a vacuum. You have to read it in the context of biology. And when that's in place, it has to be read in the context of genetics/genomics. The scattered distribution of specimens from the fossil record, and the discussions about how it complicates the explanation of micro- to macro evolution, are all moot in this level of analysis. All that's required is that it be taken in proper context and balanced against all of the evidence, not just the very specific interpretation you have in mind. Here we can see through the lens of gradualism merely by reviewing the wealth of "data" available from the fossil record at the macro level, and using those reference points in evolutionary development to mark the pages of our biology books--and then the picture is startlingly clear. We got here from the ancestors of the cyanobacteria. It's all a complete windfall of random events and the particularities of chemistry, geology and climate.
All of this--and a whole lot more--is going on in nature, so we have to present it in the classrooms. Just remember - it's not just the teaching of evolution, but of evolutionary biology. The difference is in the details.
i didn't ask you for your interpretation of my posts.
i said i haven't seen your interpretation of the article in this thread.
they are two different things.
yes, and it was RENAMED a denial thread when it started to attract other people that was interested in the subject.
No. It was renamed based on the direction drove the discussion.
without anything from the editorial staff of science this is just your opinion.
it seems i misstated what i meant.
assumption, rats turn into dogs.
what is it that says something "forks" off of this process?
edit:
maybe the question is irrelevant, i don't know.
When speciation occurs, each population is then free to develop on it's own. Given enough time, it's the difference between centipedes and scorpions, both originally sea based arthropods.
As has been carefully described to you before (back then under the increasingly unlikely assumption that you cared about such things), that analogy is garbage.wellwisher said:
The popcorn kernels do not form a progressive sequence, the process of their selection is uncorrelated with the design, the design is arbitrary, and you only made one copy.
For an analogy with the fossil record, you need to systematically number or otherwise identify the kernel in each position on the design, and make thousands of copies of the design (every one with the same kernel identification in the same position) scattered all over a landscape where the selection process varies.
i assume you meant to put the word you in there somewhere.
i'm sorry about that.
no slight on evo but stuff isn't so well laid out as it seems.
to lead our children to believe we got this stuff solved IS WRONG.
now for the killer.
the article can be easily solve by a simple definition.
what is a transitional fossil?
Last edited:
- Status